Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] tracing/function-graph-tracer: provide documentation for the function graph tracer

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 03:01:50PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > btw., a minor trace-output observation. We currently have this 
> > default output:
> > 
> > # tracer: function_graph
> > #
> > # CPU  DURATION                  FUNCTION CALLS
> > # |     |   |                     |   |   |   |
> > 
> >  0)               |  sys_open() {
> >  0)               |    do_sys_open() {
> >  0)               |      getname() {
> >  0)               |        kmem_cache_alloc() {
> >  0)   1.382 us    |          __might_sleep();
> >  0)   2.478 us    |        }
> > 
> > Wouldnt this tweaked version look even nicer:
> > 
> > #
> > # [ tracer: function_graph ]
> > #
> >  CPU)  <duration>   |  <function-name>
> >  ..............................................
> >    0)               |  sys_open() {
> >    0)               |    do_sys_open() {
> >    0)               |      getname() {
> >    0)               |        kmem_cache_alloc() {
> >    0)   1.382 us    |          __might_sleep();
> >    0)   2.478 us    |        }
> > 
> > 
> > Changes:
> > 
> >  1) Added an empty '#' line to the head. Looks nicer because 
> >     the comment is now symmetric.
> 
> Right.
>  
> >  2) Shifted of the CPU field two positions to the left. Better 
> >     for paste-ability and makes the 'CPU)' header fit as well.
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> 
> >  3) Changed the field description in the header portion to a 
> >     standard <field> notation.
> 
> 
> I guess it's more a matter of taste here.
> I like the uppercase titles because they draw a good separation between
> titles and traces.

hm, to me they look a bit sloppy. It's hard to align them to the 
colums so they look detached - despite the '| | |' vertical 
lines. Unless you find the <field> notation outright ugly, could 
we try that and see how it goes?

	Ingo