[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 13:53 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:35:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 09:30 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > For example I'm currently working with dozens of trace_printk() and I would be
> > > > very happy to turn some of them off half of the time.
> > >
> > > I guess we could try such a patch. If you send a prototype i'd be interested in
> > > testing it out.
> >
> > I don't see the point, the kernel shouldn't contain any trace_printk()s
> > to begin with..
> It's oriented toward developers. Those who use dozens of tracepoints in
> their tree because they are debugging something or developing a new feature,
> they might to deactivate/reactivate some of these independant points.
> This can also apply to dynamic_printk of course.
> Well, the very first and main point is to standardize trace_printk into
> a trace event so that it gets usable by perf tools. I have been asked many
> times "how to use trace_printk() with perf?".

Thing is, since its these dev who add the trace_printk()s to begin with,
I don't see the point in splitting them out, if you didn't want them why
did you add them to begin with?!

As to the trace_printk() to perf interface, you could do like mingo did
and create a fake event and use the regular tracepoint interface, or
hook it up directly and create a PERF_RECORD_TEXT field.

Personally I like the trace_printk() as a TRACE_EVENT(printk), it also
allows removing lots of the special casing concerning trace_printk from

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-17 14:05    [W:0.108 / U:8.320 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site