[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5587BA7A.6050208@bmw-carit.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:34:18 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: BPF based latency tracing
On 06/20/2015 10:14 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> I think it would be useful to perhaps have two options:
>
> 1) User specifies a specific CPU and gets one such an output above.
Good point. Will do.
> 2) Summary view, i.e. to have the samples of each CPU for comparison
> next to each other in columns and maybe the histogram view a bit
> more compressed (perhaps summary of all CPUs).
I agree, the current view is not really optimal. I'll look into this as
well.
Alexei indicated that he is working on per-cpu variables support. I
think that would be extremely useful to drop the hard coded limit of
CPUs and turning this sample code into some more generic code.
> Anyway, it's sample code people can go with and modify individually.
I am interested to turn this code into a more useful tool. Though I
think I miss some background information why this code is kept as
samples. Obviously, there is the API and ARCH dependency. As long as an
API change can reliable be detected I don't see a real show stopper.
Maybe I am too naive. Furthermore I expected that trace_preempt_[on|off]
wont change that often.
> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Thanks,
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
Powered by blists - more mailing lists