Em Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 03:53:42PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu: > (2014/11/10 21:23), Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 07:59:24PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu: > >> Here is the second try for the probe-cache. This version simplifies > >> the synopsis, and unifies the SDT and probe caches. > >> Please give me your comments/ideas! > >> > >> Command-line Synopsis > >> =====================
> >> Add elf(or symbols) and probe-caches of SDT if exists in <FILES> > >> perf cache --add <FILES> [--probe <SPEC>] # for user programs > > Why the --probe above? Shouldn't this be just (if you are talking about > > ELF files only): > > perf cache --add <FILES> > Yes, for the elf and sdt cache, we don't need --probe. > Note that "[]" means optional. If we would like to add some probe cache, > we need a spec of probe definition. I understand that, its just that it looked superfluous at that specific place, where you are explaining how to add ELF files. > >> perf cache --kcore <FILE> [--probe <SPEC>] # for kcore ? > > Adrian, aren't kcore files easily identifiable as such and thus could be > > added as: > > perf cache --add <FILES> > >> perf cache --probe <SPEC> # for the current kernel > > Why do we need a --probe here? Don't they always start with a character > > that is seldomly used in ELF file names and thus we could get away with > > not requiring --probe? > This is only for adding the probe cache (not elf, nor sdt), which requires > a probe definition. Moreover, I'd like to unify the specification of the > probe definition with perf-probe. In that case, --probe is more natural. What I meant was, what is wrong with replacing: perf cache --probe <SPEC> # for the current kernel With: 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? > >> Remove caches related to <FILES> or <BUILDIDS> > >> perf cache --remove <FILES>|<BUILDIDS> > >> > >> Show all probe caches(including SDT) or buildids > >> perf cache --list [probe|buildid] > >> > >> Delete existing probe-cache entries for kernel, <PATH> or/and <BUILDID>. > >> perf cache --probe-del [<GROUP>:]<EVENT>[@<PATH>][#<BUILDID>] > > > > Ditto, i.e. can't we just use: > > > > perf cache --remove [<GROUP>:]<EVENT>[@<PATH>][#<BUILDID>] > > > > And it figure out that this is a probe that is being removed? > > In most cases, it may be OK, but it is also possible to cause unexpected > result when mis-typing. I think if <FILE> is always starting at '/', it > is easy to identify. We can keep the explicit switch (--probe-del) perhaps to resolve ambiguities, if they happen, but make it so that it is not strictly required for the common case. - Thanks, - Arnaldo -- 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/
