Re: [PATCH V8 7/8] perf, x86: introduce PERF_RECORD_LOST_SAMPLES

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:15:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > >  - dropped the @id field from the record, it is already included in the
> > >    @sample_id values.
> > 
> > Hmm, this would force people to use sample_id; which in general is a
> > good idea, but should we really force that on people?
> 
> Well, if there are more than one sample, we need it, right? If there is
> just one, we don't need it, what is different? Am I needing (even more)
> coffee?
> 
> /me goes read some code...

So the question was, do we do:

	/*
	 * struct {
	 *	struct perf_event_header	header;
	 *	u64				id;
	 *	u64				lost;
	 *	struct sample_id		sample_id;
	 * };
	 */
	PERF_RECORD_LOST_SAMPLES

And have the id thing twice if attr.sample_id && PERF_SAMPLE_ID, but
allow decoding if !attr.sample_id.

Or force attr.sample_id && PERF_SAMPLE_ID if there's multiple events and
do away with the extra id field, like:

	/*
	 * struct {
	 *	struct perf_event_header	header;
	 *	u64				lost;
	 *	struct sample_id		sample_id;
	 * };
	 */
	PERF_RECORD_LOST_SAMPLES

Should we force the use of sample_id on people?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/