Re: Re: Re: [RFC] perf-cache command interface design

[Masami Hiramatsu]

(2014/11/17 12:17), Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (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
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>> 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 :)

BTW, what should we do if we put the probe cache on current running kernel?

perf cache add --probe <probe-spec>

and have no binary argument, is it OK?

Thanks,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx


--
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/