Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:22:47 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: adding trace-cmd's plugins to perf |
| |
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:50:29PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > Right now perf script cannot process kvm tracepoints: > > perf record -e kvm:* -p 6446 -- sleep 5 > > perf script > Warning: Error: expected type 4 but read 7 > Warning: Error: expected type 5 but read 0 > Warning: failed to read event print fmt for kvm_apic > Warning: Error: expected type 4 but read 7 > Warning: Error: expected type 5 but read 0 > Warning: failed to read event print fmt for kvm_inj_exception > Fatal: bad op token { > > trace-cmd can parse the events through the kvm plugin. > > As I understand it trace-cmd and perf have a lot of similar code, so I > would expect to be able to add the plugin capability to perf somewhat > easily. However, that does not seem to be the right thing to do (copying > yet more code between the two). > > Before I invest a lot of time on this path I figured I should ask what > the intentions (roadmap seems to be too formal a word ;-))
Hehe :)
> are about merging common code between the two commands. Also, trace-cmd and perf > are in separate repositories so a shared lib is going to inconvenience > one of the two.
So, we copied the tools/perf/util/trace-event-* files from trace-cmd to perf a while go. Then both files took their own path, both pulling fixes/enhancement from each others (probably more in the trace-cmd -> perf direction).
And perf is indeed a bit backward wrt parsing, because it lacks those plugins for example. So now it would be nice to unify that in a common lib so that it works well in both.
Steve proposed a shared tools/trace.so, that perf and trace-cmd could plug into, I really would like to see that happening too.
I think Ingo had some reserves about this, due to potential versioning and compatibility that such a dynamic lib would involve.
However, this seems to me a very important and necessary step to unify our tools.
| |