[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 5/5] perf/sdt: Add support to perf record to trace SDT events

On 10/22/2014 03:11 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2014/10/22 17:20), Hemant Kumar wrote:
>>>> From "file_sdt_ent" we will find out the file name.
>>>> Convert this sdt note into a perf event and then write this into uprobe_events
>>>> file to be able to record the event.
>>>> Then, corresponding entries are added to uprobe_events file for
>>>> the SDT events.
>>>> After recording is done, these events are silently deleted from uprobe_events
>>>> file. The uprobe_events file is present in debugfs/tracing directory.
>>>> To support the addition and deletion of SDT events to/from uprobe_events
>>>> file, a record_sdt struct is maintained which has the event data.
>>> OK, I have some comments on this.
>>>> An example usage:
>>>> # ./perf record -e %user_app:fun_start -aR /home/user_app
>>> At first, I'd like to add SDT support for adding probes too, like below;
>>> ./perf probe -a '%user_app:fun_start $vars'
>> But I think, previously we discussed that we won't be having "perf
>> probe" for SDT events.
>> We list them and probe/trace them using "perf record" directly.
> Right, sorry for confusing you. I meant that I'd like to support SDT on both of
> perf-record and perf-probe :)

I plan to do this and add this subsequently but will it be okay if we go
with the current
implementation for the time being?

What do you think?

> And even if we'll hide sdt related events via perf, users can access it via ftrace.
> So, I doubt that we can completely hide them, in that case, honesty is the best way;)
> Thank you,

Hemant Kumar

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-23 08:01    [W:0.045 / U:4.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site