Re: Human readable output for function return tracer

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* 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