[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100222181400.GE5055@nowhere>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:14:02 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ftrace - add support for tracing_thresh to
function_graph tracer
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:48:03AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:21 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually why do we encumber with both tracing_thresh and the funcgraph-exit
> > option?
> >
> > We could just have the output and the record check tracing_thresh instead
> > of the funcgraph-exit option.
>
> You mean just use tracing_thresh during the tracing? We could perhaps
> also change the code (and I think this would be beneficial even without
> this change) to print the function on exit if it did not have a entry.
>
> That is, in the reading of the trace, keep a depth pointer. For every
> "entry" we hit, we add one, and for every "exit" we subtract one (per
> cpu). If we go negative, we keep the counter at zero, but write
> something like:
>
>
> } (sys_write)
Why not, looks like a good idea.
>
> Because I always hate it when a trace starts with a bunch of "}" and I
> have no idea what functions they are. This would fix that.
Agreed.
> Yeah, Tim's trace would have only "} (sys_write)" type syntax but that's
> probably fine.
May be. Or we can couple your above solution and check if tracing_thresh > 0,
in which case we just zap the "}".
--
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