Re: Re: Re: [RFC] perf-cache command interface design

From: Masami Hiramatsu
Date: Mon Nov 17 2014 - 17:09:17 EST

(2014/11/17 12:17), Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2014/11/17 12:08), Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Hi Masami,
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:25:57 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> (2014/11/11 22:10), Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>>> What I meant was, what is wrong with replacing:
>>>> perf cache --probe <SPEC> # for the current kernel
>>>> With:
>>>> 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?
>>> As I've said previously, PROBE-SPEC can be same as FILES (imagine that a binary
>>> file which has same name function in the kernel.)
>>> Moreover, PROBE-SPEC requires the target binary(or kernel module) except for
>>> kernel probes. In that case, anyway we need -x or -m options with file-path
>>> for --add, that is very strange.
>>> e.g.
>>> For me,
>>> perf cache --add ./binary --probe '*'
>>> looks more natural than
>>> perf cache --add '*' -exec ./binary
>>> since in other cases(sdt/elf), we'll just do
>>> perf cache --add ./binary
>> I prefer this too. But I'd like make the 'add' part a subcommand rather
>> than option like we do in perf kmem/kvm/list/lock/mem/sched ... And it
>> can handle multiple files at once. What about this?
>> perf cache add [--elf|--sdt|--probe <spec>] <binary> [<binary>...]
> OK, that's good to me. And I think --elf/--sdt is meaningless.
> Only --probe option is required, since we can scan the elf file to
> add sdt cache when adding elf binary :)

BTW, what should we do if we put the probe cache on current running kernel?

perf cache add --probe <probe-spec>

and have no binary argument, is it OK?


Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory

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