[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289998957.2109.751.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:02:37 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 13:53 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:35:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 09:30 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > For example I'm currently working with dozens of trace_printk() and I would be
> > > > very happy to turn some of them off half of the time.
> > >
> > > I guess we could try such a patch. If you send a prototype i'd be interested in
> > > testing it out.
> >
> > I don't see the point, the kernel shouldn't contain any trace_printk()s
> > to begin with..
>
>
> It's oriented toward developers. Those who use dozens of tracepoints in
> their tree because they are debugging something or developing a new feature,
> they might to deactivate/reactivate some of these independant points.
>
> This can also apply to dynamic_printk of course.
>
> Well, the very first and main point is to standardize trace_printk into
> a trace event so that it gets usable by perf tools. I have been asked many
> times "how to use trace_printk() with perf?".
Thing is, since its these dev who add the trace_printk()s to begin with,
I don't see the point in splitting them out, if you didn't want them why
did you add them to begin with?!
As to the trace_printk() to perf interface, you could do like mingo did
and create a fake event and use the regular tracepoint interface, or
hook it up directly and create a PERF_RECORD_TEXT field.
Personally I like the trace_printk() as a TRACE_EVENT(printk), it also
allows removing lots of the special casing concerning trace_printk from
ftrace.
--
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