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

Ingo Molnar
2009-02-18T16:11:21Z

* 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