On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 05:44:35PM +0100, Mark Hills wrote: > On Tue, 27 May 2014, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:26:11AM +0100, Mark Hills wrote: > > > Time spent in system time is not useful where a syscall depends on some > > > non-CPU resource, eg. typically open() or stat() to a network drive. > > > > > > This patch adds a -w flag to produce a summary of the time difference > > > between beginning and end of the system call (ie. latency) > > > > > > This functionality has been useful to profile slow processes that are not > > > CPU-bound. > > > > > > An older commit 8050cdc mentions this: > > > > > > > It might be useful to have a mode where we show wall clock time spent > > > > in > > > > syscalls, not CPU time. It might also be more accurate. > > > > > > I'm not sure how reasonably useful the crude profile of CPU "system time" > > > is. Is it better to replace the existing functionality with > > > wallclock/latency time, or does this justify the introduction of a new > > > flag, as below? > > > > I think a new behavior justifies a new flag. Another option is to treat > > the same -c/-C option given twice as a request for this new behavior. > > In which case the -w flag seems reasonable; given the two existing flags I > think the variations would be confusing for -c/-C given twice.
OK > I'll prepare the final patch and send it. I assume I should add > Signed-off-by and a NEWS entry. Yes, a NEWS entry would be great. You can add Signed-off-by entry if you like, but it's not necessary. -- ldv
pgpnnzpnnFmTf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Time is money. Stop wasting it! Get your web API in 5 minutes. www.restlet.com/download http://p.sf.net/sfu/restlet
_______________________________________________ Strace-devel mailing list Strace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/strace-devel
