Re: [PATCH 0/4] ftrace: Add 'function-fork' trace option (v1)

[Masami Hiramatsu]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:49:29 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:40:46 +0900
> Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Masami,
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:46:21 +0900
> > > Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >  
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> This patchset add 'function-fork' option to function tracer which
> > >> makes pid filter to be inherited like 'event-fork' does.  During the
> > >> test, I found a bug of pid filter on an instance directory.  The patch
> > >> 1 fixes it and maybe it should go to the stable tree.
> > >>
> > >> The function-fork option is disabled by default as event-fork does,
> > >> but we might consider changing the default since it seems to be more
> > >> natural from an user's perspective IMHO.  
> > >
> > > By the way, I thought that event-fork option also effected to
> > > function tracer. Is there any reason we should separate those?
> > > I mean, we can add "trace-fork" option instead of "function-fork"
> > > for setting both pid filters at once.
> > >
> > > Thank you,  
> > 
> > I'm ok with combining two options.
> >
> 
> I prefer not. Mainly because they are two different mechanisms, and
> only event-fork is available now.

That sounds like implementation issue. From the viewpoint of users,
they may want to use just one knob to filter both. And I didn't
suggest replacing event-fork, but adding trace-fork for both, like a
superset option.

> trace-cmd will use ptrace if function
> fork is needed. Having it separate will let trace-cmd know if it needs
> to use ptrace or not for function forking.

Yeah, that's a good workaround for older kernel.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>