On Tue, 24 May 2022 11:35:40 -0400 Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 9:47 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > I think we should also think about versioning the guest/host protocols > > > > We actually have that. We are currently at version 3. If this becomes too > > much of an issue, we can always move to v4. But to do that would require a > > lot more thinking, as I like to support all versions, and I don't want to > > have a lot of them. Thus, if we need to update to v4. It would likely be a > > entirely new protocol to fix and extend the issues of v3. > > > Thanks for the details.. Yeah, doesn't make sense to have a version > change for this. But there may be other reasons to update to v4 ;-) > > > > Sure, I will have a look at this again and see if/how we can fix this without > > > touching existing protocol. I was thinking about adding the pid details to > > > debugfs and then reading it from there. Its not optimal as we would need a > > > supporting kernel, but it would be accurate if we have kernel support and we > > > need not rely on trace messages to get the pids. > > > > That would be useful too, in more than just trace-cmd I believe. > > > Posted a patch upstream for exposing pid in debugfs: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg278146.html Saw that. > > I shall work on trace-cmd changes as well once the above patch > is finalized.. Thanks, -- Steve
|