[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=jmS80Rs13QiTmdA5iUXvNaSKxQ9Gpp2P2nqRU@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:11:40 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: David Ahern <daahern@...co.com>
Cc: linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
acme@...stprotocols.net, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
paulus@...ba.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] perf script: dump software events too
2011/3/1 David Ahern <daahern@...co.com>:
> I don't follow what you mean.
>
> This is the same place that tracepoints are dumped. In the
> PERF_TYPE_TRACEPOINT case process_event == print_event which dumps the
> lines to stdout.
No it's not. scripting_ops can be either default_scripting_ops,
perl_scripting_ops
or python_scripting_ops.
Hence process_sample_event() doesn't necessarily ends up pretty print events.
It can also invoke a script that may decide to do what it wants with events.
pretty printing must be an endpoint decision.
> I came in added a switch that invokes a different handler for software
> events. Software events will be processed differently than tracepoint.
> The print_event function and its pretty_print function are not designed
> to dump software events (and eventually hardware events).
Why shouldn't it be designed to dump software events? It's called print_event().
Its current version is rather something I would call "limited". But it
was not designed
to be limited.
Ideally, we should have print_tracepoint_event() in
trace-event-parse.c, print_software_event()
where you want, and have print_event() in builtin-script.c that wraps on those.
--
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