Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1506905 > unrolled thread

Re: Scrolling down broken with "perf top --hierarchy"

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Scrolling down broken with "perf top --hierarchy" Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> - 2016-10-24 07:20 +0200
    Re: Scrolling down broken with "perf top --hierarchy" Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 12:20 +0200
      Re: Scrolling down broken with "perf top --hierarchy" Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> - 2016-10-24 18:40 +0200
        Re: Scrolling down broken with "perf top --hierarchy" Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 02:50 +0200

#1506905 — Re: Scrolling down broken with "perf top --hierarchy"

Hi Arnaldo,

Sorry for late reply.

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:35:45AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:53:57PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > Cc-ing perf maintainers,
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:32:29AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > On 2016.10.07 at 13:22 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 05:51:18AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > > > On 2016.10.07 at 10:17 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:33:33PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > > > > > Scrolling down is broken when using "perf top --hierarchy".
> > > > > > > When it starts up everything is OK and one can scroll up and down to all
> > > > > > > entries. But as further and further new entries get added to the list,
> > > > > > > scrolling down is blocked (at the position of the last entry that was
> > > > > > > shown directly after startup).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think below patch will fix the problem.  Please check.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes. It works fine now. Many thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > Good.  Can I add your Tested-by then?
> > > 
> > > Sure.
> > 
> > Ok, I'll send a formal patch with it.
> > 
> > > 
> > > (And in the long run you should think of making "perf top --hierarchy"
> > > the default for perf top, because it gives a much better (uncluttered)
> > > overview of what is going on.)
> > 
> > I think it's a matter of taste.  Some people prefer to see the top
> > single function or something (i.e. current behavior) while others
> > prefer to see a higher-level view.
> > 
> > But we can think again about the default at least for perf-top.  I
> > worried about changing default behavior because last time we did it
> > for children mode many people complained about it.  But I do think the
> > hierarchy mode is useful for many people though.
> 
> So, I think in such cases we could experiment with asking the user about
> switching to the new mode by showing a popup message telling what it is
> about, if the user says "yes, I want to try it" switch to it and if
> another hotkey is pressed later, write what was chosen (yes, switch to
> this new mode, no, I don't like it, don't pester me about it anymore) to
> its ~/.perfconfig file so that next time it goes straight to this new
> mode, else don't ask the user again and keep using whatever mode was
> there already.
> 
> What do you think?

I think it's a flexible way to set the default behavior while it seems
like a little bit complicated for implementation.  Also I think it's
better to popup another dialog at the end and asks for comfirmation
(but it might not be appropriate for --stdio).

And to do that, we need to have a (programmable) way of dealing with
the configs.

Taeung, is there an update on your config patchset (especially for
write support)?

Thanks,
Namhyung

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1507062

Hi, Namhyung and Arnaldo :)

On 10/24/2016 02:11 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Arnaldo,
>
> Sorry for late reply.
>
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:35:45AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:53:57PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
>>> Cc-ing perf maintainers,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:32:29AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>> On 2016.10.07 at 13:22 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 05:51:18AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016.10.07 at 10:17 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:33:33PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>>>>>> Scrolling down is broken when using "perf top --hierarchy".
>>>>>>>> When it starts up everything is OK and one can scroll up and down to all
>>>>>>>> entries. But as further and further new entries get added to the list,
>>>>>>>> scrolling down is blocked (at the position of the last entry that was
>>>>>>>> shown directly after startup).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think below patch will fix the problem.  Please check.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. It works fine now. Many thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good.  Can I add your Tested-by then?
>>>>
>>>> Sure.
>>>
>>> Ok, I'll send a formal patch with it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (And in the long run you should think of making "perf top --hierarchy"
>>>> the default for perf top, because it gives a much better (uncluttered)
>>>> overview of what is going on.)
>>>
>>> I think it's a matter of taste.  Some people prefer to see the top
>>> single function or something (i.e. current behavior) while others
>>> prefer to see a higher-level view.
>>>
>>> But we can think again about the default at least for perf-top.  I
>>> worried about changing default behavior because last time we did it
>>> for children mode many people complained about it.  But I do think the
>>> hierarchy mode is useful for many people though.
>>
>> So, I think in such cases we could experiment with asking the user about
>> switching to the new mode by showing a popup message telling what it is
>> about, if the user says "yes, I want to try it" switch to it and if
>> another hotkey is pressed later, write what was chosen (yes, switch to
>> this new mode, no, I don't like it, don't pester me about it anymore) to
>> its ~/.perfconfig file so that next time it goes straight to this new
>> mode, else don't ask the user again and keep using whatever mode was
>> there already.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think it's a flexible way to set the default behavior while it seems
> like a little bit complicated for implementation.  Also I think it's
> better to popup another dialog at the end and asks for comfirmation
> (but it might not be appropriate for --stdio).
>
> And to do that, we need to have a (programmable) way of dealing with
> the configs.
>
> Taeung, is there an update on your config patchset (especially for
> write support)?
>

Is related this link with what you said ? 
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/11/495

Yes, the config patchset would be need to be updated.
Because the config patchset which has 'write' feature
don't use a recent 'struct perf_config_set' so I should change it
to use 'perf_config_set' like show_config() of builtin-config.c:36.

Do you need write support of perf-config command ?
If this feature is more necessary than a recent patchset about default 
config array https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/5/17,
I'd remake config patchset for getting and setting features first. :)


Thanks,
Taeung

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1507399

Hi Taeung,

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:10:24PM +0900, Taeung Song wrote:
> Hi, Namhyung and Arnaldo :)
> 
> On 10/24/2016 02:11 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi Arnaldo,
> > 
> > Sorry for late reply.
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:35:45AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:53:57PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > > Cc-ing perf maintainers,
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:32:29AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > > > On 2016.10.07 at 13:22 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 05:51:18AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2016.10.07 at 10:17 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:33:33PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Scrolling down is broken when using "perf top --hierarchy".
> > > > > > > > > When it starts up everything is OK and one can scroll up and down to all
> > > > > > > > > entries. But as further and further new entries get added to the list,
> > > > > > > > > scrolling down is blocked (at the position of the last entry that was
> > > > > > > > > shown directly after startup).
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I think below patch will fix the problem.  Please check.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yes. It works fine now. Many thanks.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Good.  Can I add your Tested-by then?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sure.
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, I'll send a formal patch with it.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (And in the long run you should think of making "perf top --hierarchy"
> > > > > the default for perf top, because it gives a much better (uncluttered)
> > > > > overview of what is going on.)
> > > > 
> > > > I think it's a matter of taste.  Some people prefer to see the top
> > > > single function or something (i.e. current behavior) while others
> > > > prefer to see a higher-level view.
> > > > 
> > > > But we can think again about the default at least for perf-top.  I
> > > > worried about changing default behavior because last time we did it
> > > > for children mode many people complained about it.  But I do think the
> > > > hierarchy mode is useful for many people though.
> > > 
> > > So, I think in such cases we could experiment with asking the user about
> > > switching to the new mode by showing a popup message telling what it is
> > > about, if the user says "yes, I want to try it" switch to it and if
> > > another hotkey is pressed later, write what was chosen (yes, switch to
> > > this new mode, no, I don't like it, don't pester me about it anymore) to
> > > its ~/.perfconfig file so that next time it goes straight to this new
> > > mode, else don't ask the user again and keep using whatever mode was
> > > there already.
> > > 
> > > What do you think?
> > 
> > I think it's a flexible way to set the default behavior while it seems
> > like a little bit complicated for implementation.  Also I think it's
> > better to popup another dialog at the end and asks for comfirmation
> > (but it might not be appropriate for --stdio).
> > 
> > And to do that, we need to have a (programmable) way of dealing with
> > the configs.
> > 
> > Taeung, is there an update on your config patchset (especially for
> > write support)?
> > 
> 
> Is related this link with what you said ?
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/11/495

Yep, that kind of thing.

> 
> Yes, the config patchset would be need to be updated.
> Because the config patchset which has 'write' feature
> don't use a recent 'struct perf_config_set' so I should change it
> to use 'perf_config_set' like show_config() of builtin-config.c:36.
> 
> Do you need write support of perf-config command ?
> If this feature is more necessary than a recent patchset about default
> config array https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/5/17,
> I'd remake config patchset for getting and setting features first. :)

What I need is a way to add a config item with specific value.  Maybe
I can just append a line into a config file, but it needs to check
possible conflict somehow.  So I think it needs to process existing
config items properly and update with the new value.

Thanks,
Namhyung

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1509997

Sorry for late reply, Namhyung

On 10/25/2016 01:37 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Taeung,
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:10:24PM +0900, Taeung Song wrote:
>> Hi, Namhyung and Arnaldo :)
>>
>> On 10/24/2016 02:11 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> Hi Arnaldo,
>>>
>>> Sorry for late reply.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:35:45AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>>> Em Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 01:53:57PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
>>>>> Cc-ing perf maintainers,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:32:29AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016.10.07 at 13:22 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 05:51:18AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2016.10.07 at 10:17 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:33:33PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Scrolling down is broken when using "perf top --hierarchy".
>>>>>>>>>> When it starts up everything is OK and one can scroll up and down to all
>>>>>>>>>> entries. But as further and further new entries get added to the list,
>>>>>>>>>> scrolling down is blocked (at the position of the last entry that was
>>>>>>>>>> shown directly after startup).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think below patch will fix the problem.  Please check.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. It works fine now. Many thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good.  Can I add your Tested-by then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I'll send a formal patch with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And in the long run you should think of making "perf top --hierarchy"
>>>>>> the default for perf top, because it gives a much better (uncluttered)
>>>>>> overview of what is going on.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's a matter of taste.  Some people prefer to see the top
>>>>> single function or something (i.e. current behavior) while others
>>>>> prefer to see a higher-level view.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we can think again about the default at least for perf-top.  I
>>>>> worried about changing default behavior because last time we did it
>>>>> for children mode many people complained about it.  But I do think the
>>>>> hierarchy mode is useful for many people though.
>>>>
>>>> So, I think in such cases we could experiment with asking the user about
>>>> switching to the new mode by showing a popup message telling what it is
>>>> about, if the user says "yes, I want to try it" switch to it and if
>>>> another hotkey is pressed later, write what was chosen (yes, switch to
>>>> this new mode, no, I don't like it, don't pester me about it anymore) to
>>>> its ~/.perfconfig file so that next time it goes straight to this new
>>>> mode, else don't ask the user again and keep using whatever mode was
>>>> there already.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> I think it's a flexible way to set the default behavior while it seems
>>> like a little bit complicated for implementation.  Also I think it's
>>> better to popup another dialog at the end and asks for comfirmation
>>> (but it might not be appropriate for --stdio).
>>>
>>> And to do that, we need to have a (programmable) way of dealing with
>>> the configs.
>>>
>>> Taeung, is there an update on your config patchset (especially for
>>> write support)?
>>>
>>
>> Is related this link with what you said ?
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/11/495
>
> Yep, that kind of thing.
>
>>
>> Yes, the config patchset would be need to be updated.
>> Because the config patchset which has 'write' feature
>> don't use a recent 'struct perf_config_set' so I should change it
>> to use 'perf_config_set' like show_config() of builtin-config.c:36.
>>
>> Do you need write support of perf-config command ?
>> If this feature is more necessary than a recent patchset about default
>> config array https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/5/17,
>> I'd remake config patchset for getting and setting features first. :)
>
> What I need is a way to add a config item with specific value.  Maybe
> I can just append a line into a config file, but it needs to check
> possible conflict somehow.  So I think it needs to process existing
> config items properly and update with the new value.
>

I got it. Understood what you said!
I'll send a patchset for this. :)

Thanks,
Taeung

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web