| To: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] perfevent_pmda: Add extension for perf derived events |
| From: | Hemant Kumar <hemant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:43:29 +0530 |
| Cc: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <484836703.20809064.1455498547101.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1455060499-14670-1-git-send-email-hemant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1779243884.20121961.1455156620367.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <56BE6E0D.6050101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <484836703.20809064.1455498547101.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 |
On 02/15/2016 06:39 AM, Nathan Scott wrote: Hi Hemant, ----- Original Message -----[...]One solution might be to add a metric permanently below that point, that is instantiated both with and without derived perfevent counts e.g. perfevent.derived.active (mirror the existing perfevent.active) - a count of #derived metrics - zero valued in the default case.Right. Sent a patch to add a metric perfevent.derived.active and that should fix the warning. http://www.pcp.io/pipermail/pcp/2016-February/009610.html Thanks for the suggestion!No problem, it works nicely here and fixes the issue. I think this new metric may need some help text though? Not sure how best to add that in with the scheme used, so I'll leave that for you too, if thats OK? Taa. Sure, I will add a help text for this new metric too. -- Thanks, Hemant Kumar |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] PCP Process PMDA question, Ken McDonell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [pcp] Derived metric issues, Lukas Berk |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] perfevent_pmda: Add extension for perf derived events, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | AlNiCO magnet and FeCrCo magnet to pcp, Emma Ma |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |