From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753703AbYKMJjb (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:39:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751817AbYKMJjB (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:39:01 -0500 Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.25]:58325 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751980AbYKMJi7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:38:59 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=pmwTB5jJX/VfcjRCBQIrwkQjSGOrgCSDfQhkbaweMcewChHRuP2c99J71pncfEuzYU PyVV8r0XavZib0VYCIwXS5Mido0asaIlz36UaMBCbeuPoLCKpibfu4jo1pJ/KqJ12HYl 89pSPnJ5eohvKuvFAPdUWiXq4b2O5KPLWFFDk= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:38:58 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Weisbecker?=" To: "Ingo Molnar" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing/function-return-tracer: Call prepare_ftrace_return by registers Cc: "Steven Rostedt" , "Linux Kernel" In-Reply-To: <20081113085949.GG25479@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <491B4F63.3090909@gmail.com> <20081112221623.GB6125@elte.hu> <20081113085949.GG25479@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2008/11/13 Ingo Molnar : > hm, function-exit is a quite bad name i think that tells nothing to > the user. I like "function-cost tracer" because that tells the user > what it's all about in the end. > > Or perhaps we could name it the "callgraph" tracer? (as opposed to the > simpler function tracer which traces function entries) Note that we > could use the output to build function call coverage graphs. But you can build a call graph with the function tracer, that what does the script draw_trace.py in a bit loosely way for example. IMHO, function cost measurement or call graphs are particular uses that can be made of this engine. You can also use it to trace function return values for example. The general sense of this is more about return hooking. But.... Perhaps defining it as a "return" tracer is not easy to understand at a first sight and could bring developpers on misinterpretation (sorry does this word exist?). So perhaps naming it by thinking on the purpose it could be use at most would be better that its "general" or "potential" purpose. I don't know... > It definitely must convey the idea that this is a more capable (and > also more expensive) form of function tracing. > > Ingo > If we convey/consider it on a sight where it is capable on several things, so a more generic name should be chosen.