From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Zanussi Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] tracing: Hist trigger snapshot and onchange additions Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 13:25:35 -0500 Message-ID: <1531160735.20374.17.camel@kernel.org> References: <20180708000006.5b93884b8123392ab2446809@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de, namhyung@kernel.org, vedang.patel@intel.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, joel@joelfernandes.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, julia@ni.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Tom Zanussi To: Masami Hiramatsu Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180708000006.5b93884b8123392ab2446809@kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org Hi Masami, On Sun, 2018-07-08 at 00:00 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 15:22:19 -0500 > Tom Zanussi wrote: > > > From: Tom Zanussi > > > > Hi, > > > > This is v2 of the hist trigger snapshot and onchange additions > > patchset. It adds a couple fixes to problems flagged by the kbuild > > test robot, but is otherwise the same as v1. > > > > Changes since v1: > > > > - added missing tracing_cond_snapshot_data() definition for when > > CONFIG_TRACER_SNAPSHOT not defined > > - removed an unnecessary WARN_ON() in track_data_snapshot_print() > > > > > > Original text: > > > > This patchset adds some useful new functions to the hist > > trigger code: a snapshot action and an onchange handler. > > > > In order to make it easier to add these and in the process make the > > code more generic, I separated the code into explicit 'handlers' > > and > > 'actions', handlers being things like 'onmax' and 'onchange', and > > 'actions' being things like 'take a snapshot' or 'save some > > fields'. > > Sounds great! > > By the way, it seems that nowadays the syntax of trigger is > very complicated. For example, we can set some 'actions' without > handlers, but this introduce new 'handlers' on it. > > Could you consider not just extending it, but refactor it from > the viewpoint of consistent and extensible syntax? > > e.g. if we support > > if > > syntax, why we can not do > > onchange() It seems that doing this would restrict you to only one handler e.g. you could no longer do something like: ...:onchange($var1).save(...):onmax($var2).snapshot() I'm not sure how you would do that with your syntax. On the other hand, if the most common use case is just a single handler along with one or more actions, I think it would make sense to provide a shorthand like you describe which just gets translated into the longer more explicit form. Or were you thinking of something more radical? Thanks, Tom >