Re: [PATCH] perf annotate: Support to display the LBR data in tui mode

[Jin, Yao]

On 2/23/2018 11:29 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:25:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:35:58PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> > > Unlike the perf report interactive annotate mode, the perf annotate
> > > doesn't display the LBR data.
>
> > > perf record -b ...
> > > perf annotate function
>
> > > It should show IPC/cycle, but it doesn't.
>
> > There is far more than IPC/cycle for the LBR data, so this Changelog is
> > misleading.
>
> > Also, I think that this patch goes the wrong way, we should reduce the
> > divergence of the various modes, not make it worse.
>
> Right, Peter, what would you think if I made --stdio use the same
> routines used to format the TUI, i.e. stdio would be equal to the TUI
> modulo de navigation/jump arrows, etc.
>
> We would have switches to provide the TUI output options that make sense
> for non-interactive mode, like:
>
>    J   Toggle showing number of jump sources on targets
>    o   Toggle disassembler output/simplified view
>    s   Toggle source code view
>    t   Circulate percent, total period, samples view
>    k   Toggle line numbers

Hi Arnaldo, looks your idea is very similar as my idea. In my 
understanding, for example, we may provide switch to tui routine like 
annotate_browser__write() and use fprintf() to replace 
ui_browser__printf()/ui_browser_write__xxx() if switch is on for stdio.

Is that your idea?

For this approach, I think, the benefit is we can reuse most of existing 
code but the disadvantage is we have to mix tui and stdio up.

Thanks
Jin Yao

> And would still have e --stdio-classic (deprecated), that we would keep
> for a while.
>
> I think that this new mode with "dissassembler output" would be the same
> as the current --stdio, I'll check.
>
> To further clarify, this wouldn't use any ncurses/slang TUI code, just
> plain printf with things formatted using what is used now for the TUI
> mode.
>
> This way there would never be any drift amongst the output modes and we
> would have less work to do when implementing new stuff like this LBR
> case.
>
> What do you think?
>
> - Arnaldo