Re: [PATCH 00/12] perf trace: Python scripting support

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 03:51:55PM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 22:37 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 02:27:51AM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > This patchset adds a Python scripting engine to perf trace.  In the
> > > process, it also creates a scripting-engines directory under perf/util
> > > and moves the existing Perl support there, to avoid cluttering the
> > > main perf/util directory with scripting support files.
> > > 
> > > It also includes some minor bugfixes and adds Documentation for the
> > > Python support, which includes a step-by-step example detailing how to
> > > write a new trace stream processing script using Python.
> > > 
> > > Finally, it adds several new scripts, all dealing with aggregation of
> > > system call trace data.  To make those scripts more user-friendly, it
> > > adds a couple patches that export some of the syscall metadata, enough
> > > to allow syscall names rather than raw numbers to be printed in the
> > > output.
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry to answer that late.
> > 
> > This looks very nice! And seeing how you made it easy to plug
> > new languages, and how easy it is to write trace report scripts,
> > this looks like a cool new step for the tracing over perf tools.
> > 
> > Focusing on scripts to post-process the tracing will certainly
> > accelerate the movement in this area.
> > 
> > I've looked at some patches in the set, this looks good at
> > a first glance. I'll review it in detail and test it, and
> > then apply/push it if I don't encounter problems.
> > 
> 
> No problem, thanks for reviewing them!
> 
> They've been working fine for me - playing with the Python support over
> the past few weeks, I haven't seen any problems, but there's one other
> patch that came up later that you might also want to take a look, with
> the title [PATCH] perf record: filter out perf process tracepoint
> events.  Here's a link to that patch, in case you've lost track of it:
> 
> http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/76042/
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tom


Ah right. Hmm it's a more sensible patch, and not mandatory for
the python scripting support I guess. I'll comment in on its thread.

Thanks (BTW, I've included your change on the Pytuple size).