Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:43:12 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v3][PATCH 0/2] Make ftrace able to trace function return |
| |
* Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > at the risk of bikeshed-painting this issue too much, the problem > > with function_return is that it has little meaning to actual users > > and even to developers. What does the "return" mean? We know what > > it means, because we know that opposed to function entry we'll > > also capture function returns, and hence be able to do full > > function call tracing. > > > > so function_full i thought to conduct this aspect of it better. > > But suggestions are welcome. > > > Ok. Let's change into function_full, after all, I think that this > tool will be mostly used with a parsing pass of its traces with a > script to produce statistics and hierarchical representation like > does draw_functrace.py After that, the order of apparition of the > functions in the trace will not really matter.
how about function_cost ?
that's what it's primarily about at this stage: the ability to capture entry+exit, and have the cost printed.
as opposed to function tracer, which traces function entry events, but does not try to build a coherent picture about per function execution cost.
Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |