[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111222125558.GB1646@m.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:55:58 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org,
acme@...stprotocols.net, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aarapov@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] ftrace, perf: Add filter support for function trace
event
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:07:58PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 07:56:31PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > Adding support to filter function trace event via perf
> > interface. It is now possible to use filter interface
> > in the perf tool like:
> >
> > perf record -e ftrace:function --filter="(ip == mm_*)" ls
> >
> > The filter syntax is restricted to the the 'ip' field only,
> > and following operators are accepted '==' '!=' '||', ending
> > up with the filter strings like:
> >
> > "ip == f1 f2 ..." || "ip != f3 f4 ..." ...
>
> Having the functions seperated like this sort of violates the
> grammar of the filtering interface.
>
> The typical way to do this would have been to stringify the
> functions: ip == "f1 f2"
>
> I feel a bit uncomfortable with "ip == f1 f2" scheme but perhaps
> we can live with that. Especially as otherwise that would
> require us to type "ip == \"f1 f2\"" for the whole filtering expression.
ugh, just realized there's a problem with this in the patch actually,
and it's not working as expected. I'll send out new version soon..
thanks,
jirka
>
> Thoughts?
--
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