[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110510084410.GD27426@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:44:10 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>,
Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: Fix powerTOP regression with 2.6.39-rc5
* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On
> >>name: sched_switch
> >>ID: 57
> >>format:
> >> field:unsigned short common_type; offset:0; size:2;
> >> field:unsigned char common_flags; offset:2; size:1;
> >> field:unsigned char common_preempt_count; offset:3; size:1;
> >> field:int common_pid; offset:4; size:4;
> >> field:int common_lock_depth; offset:8; size:4;
> >>
> >> field:char prev_comm[TASK_COMM_LEN]; offset:12; size:16;
> >> field:pid_t prev_pid; offset:28; size:4;
> >> field:int prev_prio; offset:32; size:4;
> >> field:long prev_state; offset:40; size:8;
> >> field:char next_comm[TASK_COMM_LEN]; offset:48; size:16;
> >> field:pid_t next_pid; offset:64; size:4;
> >> field:int next_prio; offset:68; size:4;
> >>
> >>Is equivalent to this:
> >>
> >><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> >><KernelShark><CaptureSettings><Events><CaptureType>Events</CaptureType><System>sched</System></Events><Plugin>function_graph</Plugin><File>/tmp/trace.dat</File></CaptureSettings></KernelShark>
> >I did not say that it's equivalent, i said it's XML look-alike.
> >
> >Steve, we even joked about that, that if we continue like this we'll end up
> >with an XML parser ... I requested several changes to the description format so
> >that it becomes more human readable.
>
> frankly, for software, XML is easier to deal with than the human
> readable form.
Yes, absolutely - still i think keeping it human readable is important.
> if we are serious about wanting software to parse this stuff.. maybe exposing
> it in an easy to parse format as well is not a bad idea....
Well, the code to parse it intelligently already exists so i dont think we are
forced to go back to some harder to read (and easier to parse) format.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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