[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <529DFF8E.2030806@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 08:58:06 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
CC: acme@...stprotocols.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, namhyung@...nel.org,
"yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com" <yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf probe: Allow user to specify address within
executable
On 12/3/13, 2:24 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> I don't want to make perf-probe just a wrapper of the ftrace dynamic
> event interface, because it doesn't add any "value" for users.
Sure it does -- a consistent user experience in using a single command
(perf probe ...) for setting up userspace probes.
Specifying the address directly is really on par with perf-record having
the rNNN interface for directly passing the raw event id to the kernel.
>
>>>> In that case, you should use uprobe_events interface directly.
>>>
>>> How do I do that within the context of perf?
>
> No way, but here, you can save this script as perf-uprobe and
> can use it for that purpose. :)
I figured out what you meant by uprobe_events interface yesterday. If I
have to go to that interface for even 1 function I would do it for all
-- from a user perspective it is just simpler to have 1 command to setup
probes. I would prefer that 1 command be perf-probe.
David
--
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