Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:10:41 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] tracing/function-graph-tracer: provide documentation for the function graph tracer |
| |
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 03:01:50PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > btw., a minor trace-output observation. We currently have this > > default output: > > > > # tracer: function_graph > > # > > # CPU DURATION FUNCTION CALLS > > # | | | | | | | > > > > 0) | sys_open() { > > 0) | do_sys_open() { > > 0) | getname() { > > 0) | kmem_cache_alloc() { > > 0) 1.382 us | __might_sleep(); > > 0) 2.478 us | } > > > > Wouldnt this tweaked version look even nicer: > > > > # > > # [ tracer: function_graph ] > > # > > CPU) <duration> | <function-name> > > .............................................. > > 0) | sys_open() { > > 0) | do_sys_open() { > > 0) | getname() { > > 0) | kmem_cache_alloc() { > > 0) 1.382 us | __might_sleep(); > > 0) 2.478 us | } > > > > > > Changes: > > > > 1) Added an empty '#' line to the head. Looks nicer because > > the comment is now symmetric. > > Right. > > > 2) Shifted of the CPU field two positions to the left. Better > > for paste-ability and makes the 'CPU)' header fit as well. > > > Good. > > > > 3) Changed the field description in the header portion to a > > standard <field> notation. > > > I guess it's more a matter of taste here. > I like the uppercase titles because they draw a good separation between > titles and traces.
hm, to me they look a bit sloppy. It's hard to align them to the colums so they look detached - despite the '| | |' vertical lines. Unless you find the <field> notation outright ugly, could we try that and see how it goes?
Ingo
| |