Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tracing/function-branch-tracer: enhancements for the trace output | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:19:06 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 01:46 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Impact: enhancement > > This patch applies some ideas of Ingo Molnar and Steven Rostedt. > > * Output leaf functions in one line with parenthesis, semicolon and duration > output. > > * Add a second column (after cpu) for an overhead sign. > if duration > 100 us, "!" > if duration > 10 us, "+" > else " " > > * Print output in us with remaining nanosec: u.n > > * Print duration on the right end, following the indentation of the functions. > Use also visual clues: "-" on entry call (no duration to output) and "+" on > return (duration output). > > The name of the tracer has been fixed as well: function-branch becomes > function_branch. > > Here is an example of the new output: > > CPU[000] dequeue_entity() { - > CPU[000] update_curr() { - > CPU[000] update_min_vruntime(); + 0.512 us > CPU[000] } + 1.504 us > CPU[000] clear_buddies(); + 0.481 us > CPU[000] update_min_vruntime(); + 0.504 us > CPU[000] } + 4.557 us > CPU[000] hrtick_update() { - > CPU[000] hrtick_start_fair(); + 0.489 us > CPU[000] } + 1.443 us > CPU[000] + } + 14.655 us > CPU[000] + } + 15.678 us > CPU[000] + } + 16.686 us > CPU[000] msecs_to_jiffies(); + 0.481 us > CPU[000] put_prev_task_fair(); + 0.504 us > CPU[000] pick_next_task_fair(); + 0.482 us > CPU[000] pick_next_task_rt(); + 0.504 us > CPU[000] pick_next_task_fair(); + 0.481 us > CPU[000] pick_next_task_idle(); + 0.489 us > CPU[000] _spin_trylock(); + 0.655 us > CPU[000] _spin_unlock(); + 0.609 us > > CPU[000] ------------8<---------- thread bash-2794 ------------8<---------- > > CPU[000] finish_task_switch() { - > CPU[000] _spin_unlock_irq(); + 0.722 us > CPU[000] } + 2.369 us > CPU[000] ! } + 501972.605 us > CPU[000] ! } + 501973.763 us > CPU[000] copy_from_read_buf() { - > CPU[000] _spin_lock_irqsave(); + 0.670 us > CPU[000] _spin_unlock_irqrestore(); + 0.699 us > CPU[000] copy_to_user() { - > CPU[000] might_fault() { - > CPU[000] __might_sleep(); + 0.503 us > CPU[000] } + 1.632 us > CPU[000] __copy_to_user_ll(); + 0.542 us > CPU[000] } + 3.858 us > CPU[000] tty_audit_add_data() { - > CPU[000] _spin_lock_irq(); + 0.609 us > CPU[000] _spin_unlock_irq(); + 0.624 us > CPU[000] } + 3.196 us > CPU[000] _spin_lock_irqsave(); + 0.624 us > CPU[000] _spin_unlock_irqrestore(); + 0.625 us > CPU[000] + } + 13.611 us > CPU[000] copy_from_read_buf() { - > CPU[000] _spin_lock_irqsave(); + 0.624 us > CPU[000] _spin_unlock_irqrestore(); + 0.616 us > CPU[000] } + 2.820 us > CPU[000]
May I suggest putting the times in front of the functions, the times can be rendered in fixed with, avoiding all this unaligned foobar.
Furthermore, it would be really sweet if ftrace_printk() output would be at the right indentation level wrt the function it was called from. eg.
CPU[000] - do_sync_read() { CPU[000] # sock: 0x12345 flag: 1 CPU[000] - sock_aio_read() { ... CPU[000] + 0.123 }
Where the # line is the ftrace_printk() output.
| |