Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:40:54 +0100 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: Human readable output for function return tracer |
| |
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > Do you agree with "full function tracer" (since we hook now on the > > two sides)? > > "full function tracer" sounds a bit funny and quirky. How about > "function call tracer"? Versus the "function tracer" or "function > entry tracer" which is the lighter variant - both in name and in > overhead. So we'd have: > > # cat /debug/tracing/available_tracers > mmiotrace wakeup irqsoff function function-call sysprof sched_switch initcall nop > > note how intuitive it is: "function-call" is 'more' than just the > plain function-tracer. It also expresses its main property: it > traces the full call, entry and exit and return code as well.
another similar naming would be: the "function-graph" tracer. function-callgraph would be too long.
i think "function-call" is the best of all - relatively short and expressive.
Ingo
|  |