[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c62985530811280555m3b6eaa7fwb50bbe0f5c13bdd3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:55:44 +0100
From: "Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Tim Bird" <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/function-graph-tracer: adjustments of the trace informations
2008/11/28 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>:
> Firstly, what do you think about the additional tweaks i did - see the
> patch below?
>
> Before:
>
> 0) | sys_read() {
> 0) 0.796 us | fget_light();
> 0) | vfs_read() {
> 0) | rw_verify_area() {
> 0) | security_file_permission() {
> ------------8<---------- thread sshd-1755 ------------8<----------
>
> After:
>
> 0) | sys_read() {
> 0) 0.796 us | fget_light();
> 0) | vfs_read() {
> 0) | rw_verify_area() {
> 0) | security_file_permission() {
> ------------------------------------------
> | 1) migration/0--1 => sshd-1755
> ------------------------------------------
Thanks! That good, but I remember you wanted a limited number of
characters for thread name/pid couple?
> Secondly:
>
>> + /* Must not exceed 8 characters: xxxx.yyy us */
>> + if (duration > 10000000ULL)
>> + duration = 9999999ULL;
>
> 10 milliseconds isnt much or full system calls, etc.- so i believe the
> rule should be what i outlined in an earlier mail. The relevant
> transition points go like this:
>
> 0.000
> xxxx.yyy
> 9999.999
> 10000.00
> xxxxx.yy
> 99999.99
> 100000.0
> xxxxxx.y
> 999999.9
> 1000000
> 9999999
> 10000000
> xxxxxxxx
> 99999999 [ 100 seconds ]
> 100000000 ... up to infinity
>
> this way we can get up to 99999999 usecs with the same fixed width -
> or 100 seconds. _That_ is enough in practice.
>
> But even beyond that we should print it all out: we should still not
> clip actual information but instead shift the line to the right. The
> slightly inconsistent line is not a big problem - we want a 100
> seconds delay to stand out anyway ;-)
>
> The moving decimal point above 10 milliseconds is not a big problem
> with the '+' and '!' marker. Maybe add a '!!' marker to these lines?
Yeah, I was sure I misunderstood your idea about it in your last email :-)
Ok. I will do so, I felt a bit uncomfortable with the fixed width above a limit,
so I like it this way. Long sleeping functions will be rare enough in the trace
to let us move a bit the columns to the right in such cases...
Thanks.
--
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