jj10306 requested changes to this revision.
jj10306 added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Before doing a complete review can you provide clarity on the decision to only
support perCore for process wide (see my inline comment with my
thoughts/questions)? Understanding this will potentially provide the answers
to many other questions I was going to leave, so figured I'd ask it ahead of
time (:
================
Comment at: lldb/docs/lldb-gdb-remote.txt:369
+//
+// /* process tracing only */
// "processBufferSizeLimit": <decimal integer>,
----------------
Why do we only want this option for process tracing?
Per cpu tracing collects all trace data agnostic to a user specified
process/thread, so why should this only be exposed for process wide? I think it
makes more sense to decouple the `perCoreTracing` option from process/threads
specific options entirely so it is its own option all together and cannot be
used in conjunction with process/thread options.
If there is reason to not go down that route, we then should also add support
for `perCoreTracing` with the thread tracing option, not just the process
tracing option as I feel it doesn't make since to only expose this for process
tracing since it's doing the same thing behind the scenes.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Trace/intel-pt/CommandObjectTraceStartIntelPT.cpp:66
OptionParsingStarting(ExecutionContext *execution_context) {
- m_thread_buffer_size = kDefaultThreadBufferSize;
+ m_trace_buffer_size = kDefaultTraceBufferSize;
m_enable_tsc = kDefaultEnableTscValue;
----------------
So now m_trace_buffer_size is the size of each trace buffer, regardless of the
buffer is for a single thread or a single core?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124640/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124640
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
