[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wpbk2ohp.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:09:54 +0200
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>
Cc: Chunyan Zhang <chunyan.zhang@...eadtrum.com>,
"linux-doc\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
nicolas.guion@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stm class: Document the stm_ftrace
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com> writes:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On 20 March 2017 at 16:49, Alexander Shishkin
> <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi Chunyan,
>>
>> A couple of clarifications: iirc this applies to the function tracer
>> of ftrace, right? Does it make sense to mention that? Also, are you
>
> Right, only applies to the function tracer currently (actually only
> function address and parent function address of Function tracer is
> recorded into STM, I mean it doesn't include like "pid" "task name"
> "cpu-id" these information right now). It makes sense to mention
> function tracer, I will address that.
Thanks!
>> planning to support other ftrace payloads like trace_printk()s?
>
> No plan so far, but I think I can consider to do that, it depends on
> how many people think that are helpful.
> What do you think?
Well, I myself almost never use function tracer, but I do use
tracepoints/trace_printk()s. I'm *guessing* that everybody who's
subsystem implement tracepoints will be interested in those.
I confess that I haven't yet looked at the code properly, so I'm a don't
have a picture of what it will take to implement these.
Regards,
--
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists