Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 May 2010 13:07:57 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [RFD] Future tracing/instrumentation directions |
| |
On Thu, 20 May 2010, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:31:31AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > - [ While it's still a long way off, if this trend continues > > we eventually might even be able to get rid of the > > /debug/tracing/ temporary debug API and get rid of > > the ugly in-kernel pretty-printing bits. This is > > good: it may make Andrew very happy for a change ;-) > > > > The main detail here to be careful of is that lots of > > people are fond of the simplicity of the > > /debug/tracing/ debug UI, so when we replace it we > > want to do it by keeping that simple workflow (or > > best by making it even simpler). I have a few ideas > > how to do this. > > How? We can emulate the /debug/tracing result with something > like perf trace, still that won't replace the immediate > availability of the result of any trace, which makes it > valuable for any simplest workflows.
I'm a bit torn about this. I really like the availability of the ascii interface, but if we can come up with a very basic trace binary tool which can be built for deep embedded w/o requiring the world and some more libs to be available, then I might give up my resistance. Ideally it should be done so it can be easily integrated into busybox.
I don't care whether I do
echo 1 >/debug/..../XXX/enable cat /debug/tracing/trace
or
perfmini trace enable XXX perfmini trace dump
as long as the tool is built in a way that it does not need updates when we add trace points or other functionality to the kernel.
Thanks,
tglx
| |