From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Howard Chu <howardchu95@gmail.com>
Cc: acme@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
peterz@infradead.org, kan.liang@linux.intel.com,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] perf doc: Improve perf trace's doc on --force-btf option
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:14:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z-REG5kkE1RahBW2@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250326160416.1725322-1-howardchu95@gmail.com>
Hello,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 09:04:16AM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> As mentioned by Arnaldo in a past discussion (Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/Z2m0pWiQgZNXhvxK@x1/), the
> current documentation on --force-btf is vague and inaccurate, this patch
> aims to provide a clearer explanation of the option.
>
> Signed-off-by: Howard Chu <howardchu95@gmail.com>
> Suggested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
> ---
> tools/perf/Documentation/perf-trace.txt | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-trace.txt b/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-trace.txt
> index 887dc37773d0..cf2445d2ba3d 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-trace.txt
> +++ b/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-trace.txt
> @@ -246,10 +246,10 @@ the thread executes on the designated CPUs. Default is to monitor all CPUs.
> arguments to strings (pid to comm, syscall id to syscall name, etc).
>
> --force-btf::
> - Use btf_dump to pretty print syscall argument data, instead of using hand-crafted pretty
> - printers. This option is intended for testing BTF integration in perf trace. btf_dump-based
> - pretty-printing serves as a fallback to hand-crafted pretty printers, as the latter can
> - better pretty-print integer flags and struct pointers.
> + Use libbpf's btf_dump to pretty print syscall arguments, utilizing only the debug
> + information from BTF. This option is intended for testing BTF integration in perf
> + trace. Using libbpf is a fallback to perf trace's own prettifiers generated from the
> + kernel source, as the latter can better pretty-print integer flags and struct members.
"the latter" means our own prettifier, right? Then why do we need the
fallback as it's better and always works?
Thanks,
Namhyung
>
> PAGEFAULTS
> ----------
> --
> 2.45.2
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-26 18:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-26 16:04 [PATCH v1] perf doc: Improve perf trace's doc on --force-btf option Howard Chu
2025-03-26 18:14 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2025-03-26 18:22 ` Howard Chu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Z-REG5kkE1RahBW2@google.com \
--to=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=howardchu95@gmail.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox