Re: Human readable output for function return tracer

Ingo Molnar
2008-11-25T15:56:52Z

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> > > Do you agree with "full function tracer" (since we hook now on the
> > > two sides)?
> >
> > "full function tracer" sounds a bit funny and quirky. How about
> > "function call tracer"? Versus the "function tracer" or "function
> > entry tracer" which is the lighter variant - both in name and in
> > overhead. So we'd have:
> >
> > # cat /debug/tracing/available_tracers
> > mmiotrace wakeup irqsoff function function-call sysprof sched_switch initcall nop
> >
> > note how intuitive it is: "function-call" is 'more' than just the
> > plain function-tracer. It also expresses its main property: it
> > traces the full call, entry and exit and return code as well.
>
> another similar naming would be: the "function-graph" tracer.
> function-callgraph would be too long.

Steve thinks function-graph is even more expressive, so lets go with
that instead :)

it will certainly make sure there's no misunderstanding about the role
and scope of this tracer, and it's short and expressive as well.

so i'd suggest the following sed -i rules:

s/FUNCTION_RET_TRACER/FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER/g

i'd suggest to keep the ret_stack names - those are proper. (the thing
that is used to construct the graph is the return stack)

also, please do:

git mv kernel/tracing/trace_functions_return.c kernel/tracing/trace_functions_graph.c

and Makefile glue fixup:

s/functions_return/functions_graph/g

Ingo