Re: [PATCH perf 0/2] perf: trace-event-parse: support more operators and print formats

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:25:04PM -0700, David Sharp wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 07:01:40PM -0700, David Sharp wrote:
> >> Hi, any feedback on these patches? I think it's important that perf
> >> and trace-cmd don't drift in the syntax they accept.
> >>
> >> d#
> >
> > Sorry, I forgot these.
> >
> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:34 PM, David Sharp <dhsharp@google.com> wrote:
> >> > These patches correspond to similar patches recently applied to trace-cmd
> >> >
> >> > [ Re-sending with more Cc's ]
> >> >
> >> > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
> >> > Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> >> > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> >> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> >> > Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > David Sharp (2):
> >> >  perf: trace-event-parse: support additional operators: '!', '~',  and
> >> >    '!='
> >> >  perf: trace-event-parse: support printing short fields
> >
> > So we now have trace events that use these new operations? Which ones?
> > A quick grep on "TP_printk" and "!" doesn't give me any result, probably
> > because TP_printk is often multiline.
> >
> 
> We (google) have some events that use '~' and '!', and I threw in '!='
> mostly because it needed to be differentiated from '!' during
> tokenizing.
> 
> We set the MSB of the syscall number in raw_syscalls events to
> indicate a compat syscall, and use '~' and '!' (and '&' and '>>') to
> extract the bit. eg, for sys_exit:
> print fmt: "NR %ld = %ld isCompat: %d", REC->id & (~0UL>>1), REC->ret,
> !!(REC->id & ~(~0UL>>1))
> Patches for this will be forthcoming, but, you know: time.

Please consider the compat syscall tracing patches from Jason Baron
and Ian Munsie:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/23/69

They were pretty clean IIRC. Someone just need to rebase them, clean
up some last things and repost.

> 
> If our internally-added events are not sufficient reason, I think it
> still makes sense to support as much of the C expression syntax as
> reasonable. Leaving holes in the syntax mostly just causes frustration
> when these operators would be useful. And since they do work with the
> in-kernel output (which has the whole compiler to leverage), use of
> unsupported operators can go unnoticed for quite a while.

Hmm, ok.