Re: [PATCH 06/19] perf ftrace: Add support for --pid option

[David Ahern]

On 6/26/13 11:23 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:12:19 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 6/26/13 1:14 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > @@ -196,6 +222,8 @@ int cmd_ftrace(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix __maybe_unused)
> > >    	const struct option ftrace_options[] = {
> > >    	OPT_STRING('t', "tracer", &ftrace.tracer, "tracer",
> > >    		   "tracer to use"),
> > > +	OPT_STRING('p', "pid", &ftrace.target.tid, "pid",
> > > +		   "trace on existing process id"),
> > >    	OPT_INCR('v', "verbose", &verbose,
> > >    		 "be more verbose"),
> > >    	OPT_END()
> >
> > You are calling it pid but assigning it as a tid which is inconsistent
> > with other perf commands. e.g., perf-record allows a list of pids (-p)
> > or tids (-t). Why not support that in perf-ftrace? And that leads to
> > the comment about consistency of options across perf commands: -t is
> > used here for tracer type to use.
>
> Sorry, I should've mentioned it.
>
> The pid filtering in ftrace is done via set_ftrace_pid file under the
> tracing debugfs directory.  IIRC It only supports process filtering not
> thread filtering by iterating all threads in the kernel code.  So --tid
> option cannot be implemented as other perf commands.
>
> So I chose not to and assigned -t option to --tracer.

Could that ever change? With the current code why call it pid in the 
option but assign it to target.tid? Seems a like a source for confusion 
later. Would be better to just assign to target.pid and let the 
machinery do the right thing.

David

--
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/