Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:31:26 +0100 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/12] perf trace: Python scripting support |
| |
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 03:51:55PM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote: > On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 22:37 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 02:27:51AM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote: > > > This patchset adds a Python scripting engine to perf trace. In the > > > process, it also creates a scripting-engines directory under perf/util > > > and moves the existing Perl support there, to avoid cluttering the > > > main perf/util directory with scripting support files. > > > > > > It also includes some minor bugfixes and adds Documentation for the > > > Python support, which includes a step-by-step example detailing how to > > > write a new trace stream processing script using Python. > > > > > > Finally, it adds several new scripts, all dealing with aggregation of > > > system call trace data. To make those scripts more user-friendly, it > > > adds a couple patches that export some of the syscall metadata, enough > > > to allow syscall names rather than raw numbers to be printed in the > > > output. > > > > > > Sorry to answer that late. > > > > This looks very nice! And seeing how you made it easy to plug > > new languages, and how easy it is to write trace report scripts, > > this looks like a cool new step for the tracing over perf tools. > > > > Focusing on scripts to post-process the tracing will certainly > > accelerate the movement in this area. > > > > I've looked at some patches in the set, this looks good at > > a first glance. I'll review it in detail and test it, and > > then apply/push it if I don't encounter problems. > > > > No problem, thanks for reviewing them! > > They've been working fine for me - playing with the Python support over > the past few weeks, I haven't seen any problems, but there's one other > patch that came up later that you might also want to take a look, with > the title [PATCH] perf record: filter out perf process tracepoint > events. Here's a link to that patch, in case you've lost track of it: > > http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/76042/ > > Thanks, > > Tom
Ah right. Hmm it's a more sensible patch, and not mandatory for the python scripting support I guess. I'll comment in on its thread.
Thanks (BTW, I've included your change on the Pytuple size).
| |