Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:31:13 -0500 (EST) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tracing/function-branch-tracer: enhancements for the trace output |
| |
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Fr?d?ric Weisbecker wrote: > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------- > >> > CPU) cost | function > >> > --------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > 0) | sys_read() { > >> > 0) 0.331 us | fget_light(); > >> > 0) | vfs_read() { > >> > 0) | rw_verify_area() { > >> > 0) | security_file_permission() { > >> > 0) 0.306 us | cap_file_permission(); > >> > 0) 0.300 us | cap_file_permission(); > >> > 0) 8.909 us | } > >> > 0) 0.993 us | } > >> > 0) 11.649 us |+ } > >> > 0) | do_sync_read() { > >> > 0) | sock_aio_read() { > >> > 0) | __sock_recvmsg() { > >> > 0) | security_socket_recvmsg() { > >> > 0) 100.319 us |! cap_socket_recvmsg(); > >> > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Hm? > > I like it before the CPU number. The main purpose would be to scroll > quickly the file and find the overheads. That would be easy if set as > a first character.
No, please keep the CPU # first. If anything, you will want to separate out the CPUs first. Otherwise you will see things all mixed up.
Hmm, I could also add a per cpu files.
debugfs/tracing/buffers/cpu0 debugfs/tracing/buffers/cpu1 debugfs/tracing/buffers/cpu2 debugfs/tracing/buffers/cpu3
That would print out the trace for a single CPU.
BTW, I'm really not here. I'm on holiday eating turkeys.
-- Steve
| |