Em Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:56:44PM -0600, David Ahern escreveu:
> >> static const char * const kvm_usage[] = {
> >>+ "perf kvm [<options>] {top|record|report|diff|buildid-list|stat}",
> >The usage for the report/record sub commands of stat is never shown. e.g.,
> >$ perf kvm stat
> >--> shows help for perf-stat
> >$ perf kvm
> >--> shows the above and perf-kvm's usage
>
> [I deleted this thread, so having to reply to one of my responses.
> hopefully noone is unduly harmed by this.]
>
> I've been using this command a bit lately -- especially on nested
> virtualization -- and I think the syntax is quirky - meaning wrong.
> In my case I always follow up a record with a report and end up
> using a shell script wrapper that combines the 2 and running it
> repeatedly. e.g.,
>
> $PERF kvm stat record -o $FILE -p $pid -- sleep $time
> [ $? -eq 0 ] && $PERF --no-pager kvm -i $FILE stat report
>
> As my daughter likes to say - awkward.
>
> That suggests what is really needed is a 'live' mode - a continual
> updating of the output like perf top, not a record and analyze later
> mode. Which does come back to why I responded to this email -- the
> syntax is klunky and awkward.
>
> So, I spent a fair amount of time today implementing a live mode.
> And after a lot of swearing at the tracepoint processing code I
What kind of swearing? I'm working on 'perf test' entries for
tracepoints to make sure we don't regress on the perf/libtraceevent
junction, doing that as prep work for further simplifying tracepoint
tools like sched, kvm, kmem, etc.
> finally have it working. And the format extends easily (meaning <
> day and the next step) to a perf-based kvm_stat replacement. Example
> syntax is:
>
> perf kvm stat [-p <pid>|-a|...]
>
> which defaults to an update delay of 1 second, and vmexit analysis.
>
> The guts of the processing logic come from the existing kvm-events
> code. The changes focus on combining the record and report paths
> into one. The display needs some help (Arnaldo?), but it seems to
> work well.
>
> I'd like to get opinions on what next? IMO, the record/report path
> should not get a foot hold from a backward compatibility perspective
> and having to maintain those options. I am willing to take the
> existing patches into git to maintain authorship and from there
> apply patches to make the live mode work - which includes a bit of
> refactoring of perf code (like the stats changes).
>
> Before I march down this path, any objections, opinions, etc?
Can I see the code?
- Arnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
