[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH -tip tracing/kprobes 0/9] tracing/kprobes, perf: perf probe and kprobe-tracer bugfixes
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> Here are a few syntax suggestions
>>> The simpest probe syntax should be to add a probe to a single
>>> function name:
>>> perf probe +schedule
>>> _nothing else_.
>>> To remove it, the user should just do something like:
>>> perf probe -schedule
>>> (to be symmetric 'perf probe +schedule' should work as well)
>> I think '-<symbol>' syntax doesn't work good with other command-line
>> options and multiple definitions. (However, it will be good for
>> input-from-file syntax. :-))
> dash can be used too - perf has the options library from Git and there's
> a wide spectrum of option parsing available, via
> tools/perf/util/parse-options.h.
> But yes, it complicates things a bit.

Yeah, what I'm concerning about is that user will confuse when deleting
probe points which starts with other option, like 'k'.
(-kmalloc can mean -k malloc too)

>> So, what would you think about using -D (def) and -U (undef) ?
> The simpest case should be no extra character at all:
> perf probe schedule
> There's a few well-known command line idioms to add/remove stuff, but -D
> / -U is not one of them i'm afraid =B-)
> The following ones might work too:
> perf probe +schedule
> perf probe -schedule
> perf probe add schedule
> perf probe del schedule
> perf probe --add schedule
> perf probe --del schedule
> [ Plain 'add/del' has a minor complication as we could have a similar
> symbol defined. ]
> + / - is certainly the simplest.
> --add/--del works like routes do, so that's intuitive as well. As long
> as we have the simple default to add a new probe at a function, without
> any extra options we can do this too initially.

How about the following syntax?
perf probe schedule
perf probe --add schedule

perf probe --del schedule
perf probe --del all /* delete all probepoints */

So, this doesn't symmetric, but provides simple way to add a probe.

>>> All the other extensions and possibilities - arguments, variables,
>>> source code lines, etc. should be natural and intuitive extensions
>>> of this basic, minimal syntax.
>> Don't you like current space(' ') separated arguments? :-) I mean,
>> what is 'natural' syntax in your opinion?
> Yeah, space separated arguments are nice too. The question is how to
> specify a more precise coordinate for the bit we want to probe - and how
> to specify the information we want to extract. Something like:
> perf schedule+15
> would be a rather intuitive shortcut for '15 lines into the schedule()
> function' - and it might even be a largely cross-kernel-version
> compatible way of specifying probe points.

I agreed with the cross-kernel-version issue. I'd rather like

perf probe symbol:relative-line


perf probe file:absolute-line

since it will be familiar for GDB users.

And I'd like to preserve

perf probe symbol+offs-byte

for assembly users who might want to trace assembly code with

> Or this:
> perf schedule:'switch_count = &prev->nivcsw'
> would insert the probe to the source code that matches that statement
> pattern. Rarely will people want to insert a probe to an absolutely line
> number - that's a usage mode for higher level tools. (so we definitely
> want to support it - but it should not use up valuable spots in our
> options space.) Same goes for symbol offsets, etc. - humans will rarely
> use them.

Hmm, maybe, it's possible. I should investigate dwarf more...

Thank you!

Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-19 20:59    [W:0.061 / U:23.528 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site