[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180417164432.GB7775@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:44:32 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/x86: Update syscall trace events to handle new
x86 syscall func names
Em Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:40:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:35:27 -0300
> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> > [root@...et ~]# perf test openat
> > 2: Detect openat syscall event : Ok
> > 3: Detect openat syscall event on all cpus : Ok
> > 15: syscalls:sys_enter_openat event fields : Ok
> > [root@...et ~]#
> >
> > [root@...et ~]# perf trace -e nanosleep,syscalls:*nanosleep sleep 1
> > 0.000 ( ): syscalls:sys_enter_nanosleep:rqtp: 0x7ffd9f737950, rmtp: 0x00000000
> > 0.009 ( ): sleep/7905 nanosleep(rqtp: 0x7ffd9f737950 ) ...
> > 1000.204 ( ): syscalls:sys_exit_nanosleep:0x0
> > 0.009 (1000.217 ms): sleep/7905 ... [continued]: nanosleep()) = 0
> > [root@...et ~]#
> >
> > Works, so the regression seems to be fixed, without looking at the code
> > that much:
> >
> > Tested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
>
> But does this still work on x86_32? I'll test that out. Thanks for
> testing, but I may have another patch soon.
I haven't tested that case, no.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists