[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] tracing/function-return-tracer: Call prepare_ftrace_return by registers

* Frédéric Weisbecker <> wrote:

> 2008/11/13 Ingo Molnar <>:
> > hm, function-exit is a quite bad name i think that tells nothing to
> > the user. I like "function-cost tracer" because that tells the user
> > what it's all about in the end.
> >
> > Or perhaps we could name it the "callgraph" tracer? (as opposed to the
> > simpler function tracer which traces function entries) Note that we
> > could use the output to build function call coverage graphs.
> But you can build a call graph with the function tracer, that what
> does the script in a bit loosely way for example.

yes, but not reliably so - there's no guaranteed callgraph structure.
With entry tracing we have entry+parent events, but especially across
longer callchains there's no truly guaranteed way to preserve the full

> IMHO, function cost measurement or call graphs are particular uses
> that can be made of this engine. You can also use it to trace
> function return values for example.

yes. The mockup output has place for that.

> So perhaps naming it by thinking on the purpose it could be use at
> most would be better that its "general" or "potential" purpose. I
> don't know...

i suggested "full-function" tracer name before, but that sounds a bit
quirky too.

Perhaps this should be the function-tracer, and the entry tracer would
be the function-entry tracer?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-13 10:47    [W:0.068 / U:11.248 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site