(2014/10/23 17:21), Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi Masami, > > On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:33:37 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> (2014/10/23 14:54), Srikar Dronamraju wrote: >>> I am somehow not able to figure out how perf probe comes into the >>> current workflow. >>> >>> I think the current design was >>> 1. perf sdt-cache --add <file> (only once per file) >>> 2. perf record -e <sdt-event> >>> >>> So what is the additional thing that perf probe does or Is it going to >>> replace any of the above steps? >> >> 3. perf probe -a <sdt-event> >> >> And this will be done subsequently in this series (without user interface >> part). >> However, current implementation of 2. will do the following steps >> >> s1. get sdt event data from sdt-cache >> s2. set up sdt events with suppressing messages >> s3. do recording events >> (s4. and hiding existing sdt events from perf-probe --list) >> s5. remove sdt events >> >> So, what I proposed were ; >> - to implement s2., we can introduce --quiet(-q) option and use it >> instead of ->sdt flag checking >> - removing s4. and s5. >> - and add verification of existing sdt events at s2. if needed. > > I'm okay with removing the s4 but not sure about the s5. In that case, > we might have many dynamic events in a system without noticing to users.
Indeed, okey, so let's keep s5 then :) Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
