From: John L. <le...@mo...> - 2005-02-08 00:53:05
|
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:04:00PM -0700, Scott T Jones wrote: > This patch adds two new functions to OProfile. First, it adds the ability I've just spent a couple of minutes (literally: two minutes) look at the patch, and it looks pretty good. I'll try and find time for a proper, close review soon. One concern architecturally is your approach the fake ELF files. First, they need to get generated *permanently*: I could be running opreport two months after the profiler was running, on a different machine. What you need is to create them in /var/lib/oprofile/samples/{anon}/ or whatever. Second, getting opreport to write out the ELF files isn't good either, for the same reasons. Instead of these temporary ranges/entries files, can't that very same code be responsible for writing the ELF files? It could do this periodically or when it shuts down. Ideally, the pp tools shouldn't have to know *anything* about this stuff. Anyway, this looks encouraging. regards, john |
From: Scott T J. <st...@us...> - 2005-03-07 21:13:40
|
John, We have most of the changes ready and have been waiting for your response to Enio's two comments on 01 MAR 2005 before implementing the rest of them. Would it be OK if we resubmitted the already agreed to changes and do the following for now: Take advantage of the existing --reset and --save options of opcontrol by the following placement of our files: Intermediate files: /var/lib/oprofile/samples/current/{anon}/TGID/ranges /var/lib/oprofile/samples/current/{anon}/TGID/entries Generated ELF file: /var/lib/oprofile/samples/current/{anon}/TGID/anon-PROCESS_NAME.TGID TGID is the actual tgid number and PROCESS_NAME is the actual name of the process that has anonymous samples. Modify the --dump option of opcontrol, and possibly --stop and --shutdown, to invoke a standalone program that calls libopjdl.so to create the dummy ELF files. This would eliminate the need to modify opreport. Scott WBI Performance II IBM Corp, Austin, TX Reply to: st...@us... Phone: (512) 838-4758, T/L: 678-4758 |
From: Philippe E. <ph...@wa...> - 2005-03-09 00:31:52
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 at 15:13 +0000, Scott T Jones wrote: > John, > > We have most of the changes ready and have been waiting for your response > to Enio's > two comments on 01 MAR 2005 before implementing the rest of them. > > Would it be OK if we resubmitted the already agreed to changes and do the > following Yes, resubmit it please. -- Philippe Elie |
From: Enio P. <en...@so...> - 2005-03-09 16:08:44
|
Philippe Elie wrote: > On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 at 15:13 +0000, Scott T Jones wrote: > > >>John, >> >>We have most of the changes ready and have been waiting for your response >>to Enio's >>two comments on 01 MAR 2005 before implementing the rest of them. >> >>Would it be OK if we resubmitted the already agreed to changes and do the >>following > > > Yes, resubmit it please. > Great, will get going on the code ... Enio. |
From: John L. <le...@mo...> - 2005-03-09 12:39:32
|
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 03:13:28PM -0600, Scott T Jones wrote: > John, > > We have most of the changes ready and have been waiting for your response > to Enio's > two comments on 01 MAR 2005 before implementing the rest of them. Sorry for my tardiness, I'm currently net.dead most of the time so haven't been able to look closely at this thread. As a result, please let Phil decide on the best course (and integrate as necessary). Hopefully later I'll take a proper look at these issues and see if we can reach a conclusion to the design issues. (Note I'll be expecting a certain amount of after-care if the patch goes in anyway...) regards john |