Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:44:12 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing/function-return-tracer: Call prepare_ftrace_return by registers |
| |
* Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/13 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>: > > 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 draw_trace.py 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 graph.
> 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?
Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |