Re: Re: [RFC] perf-cache command interface design
From: Masami Hiramatsu
Date: Sun Nov 16 2014 - 22:17:51 EST
(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
>>> 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.
>> 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 :)
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/