[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] perf-cache command interface design
Em Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 03:53:42PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu:
> (2014/11/10 21:23), Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 07:59:24PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu:
> >> Here is the second try for the probe-cache. This version simplifies
> >> the synopsis, and unifies the SDT and probe caches.
> >> Please give me your comments/ideas!
> >>
> >> Command-line Synopsis
> >> =====================

> >> Add elf(or symbols) and probe-caches of SDT if exists in <FILES>
> >> perf cache --add <FILES> [--probe <SPEC>] # for user programs

> > Why the --probe above? Shouldn't this be just (if you are talking about
> > ELF files only):

> > perf cache --add <FILES>

> Yes, for the elf and sdt cache, we don't need --probe.
> Note that "[]" means optional. If we would like to add some probe cache,
> we need a spec of probe definition.

I understand that, its just that it looked superfluous at that specific
place, where you are explaining how to add ELF files.

> >> perf cache --kcore <FILE> [--probe <SPEC>] # for kcore ?

> > Adrian, aren't kcore files easily identifiable as such and thus could be
> > added as:

> > perf cache --add <FILES>

> >> perf cache --probe <SPEC> # for the current kernel

> > Why do we need a --probe here? Don't they always start with a character
> > that is seldomly used in ELF file names and thus we could get away with
> > not requiring --probe?

> This is only for adding the probe cache (not elf, nor sdt), which requires
> a probe definition. Moreover, I'd like to unify the specification of the
> probe definition with perf-probe. In that case, --probe is more natural.

What I meant was, what is wrong with replacing:

perf cache --probe <SPEC> # for the current kernel


perf cache --add <PROBE-SPEC> # for the current kernel

And have it figure out that what is being added is a probe and do the
right thing?

> >> Remove caches related to <FILES> or <BUILDIDS>
> >> perf cache --remove <FILES>|<BUILDIDS>
> >>
> >> Show all probe caches(including SDT) or buildids
> >> perf cache --list [probe|buildid]
> >>
> >> Delete existing probe-cache entries for kernel, <PATH> or/and <BUILDID>.
> >> perf cache --probe-del [<GROUP>:]<EVENT>[@<PATH>][#<BUILDID>]
> >
> > Ditto, i.e. can't we just use:
> >
> > perf cache --remove [<GROUP>:]<EVENT>[@<PATH>][#<BUILDID>]
> >
> > And it figure out that this is a probe that is being removed?
> In most cases, it may be OK, but it is also possible to cause unexpected
> result when mis-typing. I think if <FILE> is always starting at '/', it
> is easy to identify.

We can keep the explicit switch (--probe-del) perhaps to resolve
ambiguities, if they happen, but make it so that it is not strictly
required for the common case.

- Thanks,

- Arnaldo
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-11 15:01    [W:0.115 / U:1.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site