[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:43:12 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3][PATCH 0/2] Make ftrace able to trace function return
* Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> > at the risk of bikeshed-painting this issue too much, the problem
> > with function_return is that it has little meaning to actual users
> > and even to developers. What does the "return" mean? We know what
> > it means, because we know that opposed to function entry we'll
> > also capture function returns, and hence be able to do full
> > function call tracing.
> >
> > so function_full i thought to conduct this aspect of it better.
> > But suggestions are welcome.
>
>
> Ok. Let's change into function_full, after all, I think that this
> tool will be mostly used with a parsing pass of its traces with a
> script to produce statistics and hierarchical representation like
> does draw_functrace.py After that, the order of apparition of the
> functions in the trace will not really matter.
how about function_cost ?
that's what it's primarily about at this stage: the ability to capture
entry+exit, and have the cost printed.
as opposed to function tracer, which traces function entry events, but
does not try to build a coherent picture about per function execution
cost.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists