[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131028141152.GA1040@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:41:52 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@....fi>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Hemant Kumar <hkshaw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
hegdevasant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
anton@...hat.com, systemtap@...rceware.org,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, aravinda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] Support for perf to probe into SDT markers:
* Pekka Enberg <penberg@....fi> [2013-10-28 14:42:13]:
> >So, it still needs a concrete binary path to list or, we should
> >support a syntax which specify actual binary, as like as below.
> >
> > perf probe 'my_event=%libc:setjmp@...b64/libc.so.6'
> >
> >And perf list may show the marker as in same syntax (for copy&paste).
> >
> ># perf list --sdt
> > %libc:setjmp@...b64/libc.so.6
> > ...
> >
> >Note that we need '%' to separate namespace :(, since user can define
> >any marker(provider) name in their binary...
>
> Sure, you need to support that sort of 'fully qualified name' for
> duplicate symbols but the default 'libc:setjmp' should still point
> to system libc.
But what if a system has both 32 bit libc and 64 bit libc?
Wont we could end up with 2 libc:setjmp?
Should we give some more intelligence into perf to choose the 64 bit
libc over 32 bit one?
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
--
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