(2014/11/17 12:08), Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi Masami, > > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:25:57 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> (2014/11/11 22:10), Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >>> What I meant was, what is wrong with replacing: >>> >>> perf cache --probe <SPEC> # for the current kernel >>> >>> With: >>> >>> perf cache --add <PROBE-SPEC> # for the current kernel >>> >>> And have it figure out that what is being added is a probe and do the >>> right thing? >> >> As I've said previously, PROBE-SPEC can be same as FILES (imagine that a >> binary >> file which has same name function in the kernel.) >> Moreover, PROBE-SPEC requires the target binary(or kernel module) except for >> kernel probes. In that case, anyway we need -x or -m options with file-path >> for --add, that is very strange. >> >> e.g. >> >> For me, >> >> perf cache --add ./binary --probe '*' >> >> looks more natural than >> >> perf cache --add '*' -exec ./binary >> >> since in other cases(sdt/elf), we'll just do >> >> perf cache --add ./binary > > I prefer this too. But I'd like make the 'add' part a subcommand rather > than option like we do in perf kmem/kvm/list/lock/mem/sched ... And it > can handle multiple files at once. What about this? > > perf cache add [--elf|--sdt|--probe <spec>] <binary> [<binary>...]
OK, that's good to me. And I think --elf/--sdt is meaningless. Only --probe option is required, since we can scan the elf file to add sdt cache when adding elf binary :) Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
