[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c62985530811250749mc2e15f9lf080df7d1c444f5a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:49:42 +0100
From: "Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Human readable output for function return tracer
2008/11/25 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
>> > Do you agree with "full function tracer" (since we hook now on the
>> > two sides)?
>>
>> "full function tracer" sounds a bit funny and quirky. How about
>> "function call tracer"? Versus the "function tracer" or "function
>> entry tracer" which is the lighter variant - both in name and in
>> overhead. So we'd have:
>>
>> # cat /debug/tracing/available_tracers
>> mmiotrace wakeup irqsoff function function-call sysprof sched_switch initcall nop
>>
>> note how intuitive it is: "function-call" is 'more' than just the
>> plain function-tracer. It also expresses its main property: it
>> traces the full call, entry and exit and return code as well.
>
> another similar naming would be: the "function-graph" tracer.
> function-callgraph would be too long.
>
> i think "function-call" is the best of all - relatively short and
> expressive.
>
> Ingo
>
Ok. No problem for me. But if ftrace is not renamed to ftrace-entry, I
think that it will be
confusing...
--
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