Re: [RFC v3][PATCH 0/2] Make ftrace able to trace function return

[Ingo Molnar]

* Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/