Re: Re: [RFC] perf-cache command interface design
From: Masami Hiramatsu
Date: Tue Nov 18 2014 - 05:32:43 EST
(2014/11/18 13:41), Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Masami,
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:17:31 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2014/11/17 12:08), Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> 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.
> Maybe not :)
> I'm considering the opposite side - by providing the options, we also
> support the negative ones too. So --no-elf and/or --no-sdt options are
> possible. Also the positive options can be used with del(ete)
> subcommand to remove some contents selectively.
> I think it'd be helpful as we sometimes don't want to do that for some
> reason. For example, current perf record adds binary (elf) files to the
> cache automatically iff it's accessed. But what about SDTs? Should we
> add SDTs at the same time? If not, what if we try to add existing elf
> files only for SDTs?
Ah, I see. Indeed, in this case we'd better have perf cache add --sdt <bin>
for explicitly adding SDTs. (Of course perf cache add <bin> can also
add SDTs automagically, but adding --sdt is more natural)
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 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/