Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:56:31 +0100 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: Human readable output for function return tracer |
| |
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > * 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.
Steve thinks function-graph is even more expressive, so lets go with that instead :)
it will certainly make sure there's no misunderstanding about the role and scope of this tracer, and it's short and expressive as well.
so i'd suggest the following sed -i rules:
s/FUNCTION_RET_TRACER/FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER/g
i'd suggest to keep the ret_stack names - those are proper. (the thing that is used to construct the graph is the return stack)
also, please do:
git mv kernel/tracing/trace_functions_return.c kernel/tracing/trace_functions_graph.c
and Makefile glue fixup:
s/functions_return/functions_graph/g
Ingo
|  |