[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090525082743.GA6215@nowhere>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 10:27:45 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ftrace: Add task_comm support for trace_event
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:54:27AM +0800, Zhaolei wrote:
> * From: "Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 06:05:37PM +0800, Zhaolei wrote:
> >> If we use trace_event alone(without function trace, .etc),
> >> it can't output enough task command information.
> >>
> >> Before patch:
> >> # echo 1 > debugfs/tracing/events/sched/sched_switch/enable
> >> # cat debugfs/tracing/trace
> >> # tracer: nop
> >> #
> >> # TASK-PID CPU# TIMESTAMP FUNCTION
> >> # | | | | |
> >> <...>-2289 [000] 526276.724790: sched_switch: task bash:2289 [120] ==> sshd:2287 [120]
> >> <...>-2287 [000] 526276.725231: sched_switch: task sshd:2287 [120] ==> bash:2289 [120]
> >> <...>-2289 [000] 526276.725452: sched_switch: task bash:2289 [120] ==> sshd:2287 [120]
> >> <...>-2287 [000] 526276.727181: sched_switch: task sshd:2287 [120] ==> swapper:0 [140]
> >> <idle>-0 [000] 526277.032734: sched_switch: task swapper:0 [140] ==> events/0:5 [115]
> >> <...>-5 [000] 526277.032782: sched_switch: task events/0:5 [115] ==> swapper:0 [140]
> >> ...
> >>
> >> After patch:
> >> # tracer: nop
> >> #
> >> # TASK-PID CPU# TIMESTAMP FUNCTION
> >> # | | | | |
> >> bash-2269 [000] 527347.989229: sched_switch: task bash:2269 [120] ==> sshd:2267 [120]
> >> sshd-2267 [000] 527347.990960: sched_switch: task sshd:2267 [120] ==> bash:2269 [120]
> >> bash-2269 [000] 527347.991143: sched_switch: task bash:2269 [120] ==> sshd:2267 [120]
> >> sshd-2267 [000] 527347.992959: sched_switch: task sshd:2267 [120] ==> swapper:0 [140]
> >> <idle>-0 [000] 527348.531989: sched_switch: task swapper:0 [140] ==> events/0:5 [115]
> >> events/0-5 [000] 527348.532115: sched_switch: task events/0:5 [115] ==> swapper:0 [140]
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> > This is fine but I think it can be factorized.
> >
> > You could call start_cmdline_record() from
> >
> > ftrace_raw_reg_event_##call()
> >
> > and the stop in
> >
> > ftrace_raw_unreg_event_##call()
> >
> > No?
>
> Hello, Frederic
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> Actually, I considered to put start_cmdline_record() into ftrace_raw_reg_event_##call(),
> but finally I selected to put it into tracing_start_cmdline_record().
>
> IMHO, we have following reason:
> 1: It can make source more readable.
> Read function is more easy than read macro.
> 2: These two way have same performance.
> 3: Put start_cmdline_record() into ftrace_event_enable_disable() will reduce
> binary file size than ftrace_raw_reg_event_##call().
>
> So I think put start_cmdline_record() into ftrace_event_enable_disable() maybe better.
>
> What is your opinion?
>
> Thanks
> Zhaolei
Yeah, there are pros and cons. Putting it at the lower level will
increase image size but make easier the maintainance...
I don't know which one is better :)
I guess both are valuable.
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