[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100318032804.GA5045@nowhere>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:28:07 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
systemtap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
DLE <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 10/10] perf probe: Accessing members in data
structures
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 03:14:43PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 18:06 -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> Support accessing members in the data structures. With this,
> >> perf-probe accepts data-structure members(IOW, it now accepts
> >> dot '.' and arrow '->' operators) as probe arguemnts.
> >>
> >> e.g.
> >>
> >> ./perf probe --add 'schedule:44 rq->curr'
> >>
> >> ./perf probe --add 'vfs_read file->f_op->read file->f_path.dentry'
> >>
> >> Note that '>' can be interpreted as redirection in command-line.
> >
> > If you find that a problem then you can do like SystemTap does and allow
> > '.' in place of '->'. In the code you already use the
> > perf_probe_arg_field ref flag only to check that the DIE gives you the
> > same information. So you could just drop that and use any separator.
> > Then you decide based on whether you see a DW_TAG_pointer_type. This
> > gives the user some extra flexibility by letting them not having to care
> > about specifying extra type information already available elsewhere.
>
> Thanks, when designing this feature, I considered it too.
>
> Since perf probe already support displaying source code by --line option,
> users will read the probed code itself and try to probe it. In that case,
> I think they naturally use '.' and '->' as they read (they might try to
> copy & paste it).
>
> So, I think that it would be good to support both of '.' and '->' as
> they are used in the code, because it will not confuse users.
>
> Thank you,
Agreed.
And lets people use what is common for them: expressions that follow
C rules in the context.
And those who will be more familiar with perf probe will know they can
use the simplified "." based scheme.
--
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