On 2/12/24 00:35, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:38:38 +0100 Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@xxxxxxx> wrote: >So what I'm thinking is that the -B buffers default to the same buffer as the top buffer unless specified differently. Here's what I think would work. We add four new options. --top -B <instance> -t -b Where --top represents the "top" instance. -B represents the <instance> -t can be used after -B to make it a top instance. -b can be used before any -B to make the top instance into its own instance.This set of parameters sounds good to me.Rules: --top can not come after -B. -t must come after -B -b must come before -BIIUC, these rules are described in the syntax below.There can only be one top instance, and all named instances must be unique. That is, you can't have two instances called "foo". We have: trace-cmd split <TOP_COMMANDS> <INSTANCE_COMMANDS> TOP_COMMANDS :: nil | TOP_PARAMS INSTANCE_COMMANDS :: nil | -B name INSTANCE_PARAMS INSTANCE_COMMANDS TOP_PARAMS :: nil | TOP_OPTIONS TOP_PARAMS TOP_OPTIONS :: --top | -b name | -o file INSTANCE_PARAMS :: nil | INSTANCE_OPTIONS INSTANCE_PARAMS INSTANCE_OPTIONS :: nil | -t | -o fileI think it might also be difficult to place the top instance in multiple output files (or the intention was to do it in multiple steps ?). For instance, from a trace containing a top instance and foo/bar instances, what would be the command to obtain: - a foo.dat file containing the top + foo instances - a bar.dat file containing the top + bar instancesDoes that need to be done in a single command, or two commands? trace-cmd split --top -B foo trace-cmd split --top -B bar ?
Yes ok, we can do that.
If this was: trace-cmd split --top -o foo.dat --top -o bar.dat -B foo -o foo.dat -B bar -o bar.dat I think it would be clearer to revolve around the output file: trace-cmd split --top -B foo -o foo.dat --top -B bar -o bar.dat but this is open to debate.My concern is that if we want to do that in one command it can cause the code and parameters to become too complex. But I'm not against the idea. I personally think that if we allow too much it may become too confusing.
Ok ok, we can limit the command to one output file.
--- Also, if one wants to place all the instance in one output.dat file, IIUC all the instances will have to be nominatively selected right ?Examples: trace-cmd split --top -B foo Will make a trace.dat.1 that has top and foo in it. trace-cmd split --top Will make a trace.dat.1 that only has the top instance trace-cmd split -B foo Will make a trace.dat.1 that only has foo in it. trace-cmd split -B foo -t Will make a trace.dat.1 that only has foo in it. It will also promote the instance foo to the top instance (it will lose its "foo" name). trace-cmd split --top -o buba.dat -B foo Will create a buba.dat that has both top and foo in itFrom the syntax above, I would have thought that this would be parsed as: - <TOP_COMMANDS>: '--top -o buba.dat' - <INSTANCE_COMMANDS>: '-B foo' and so that the 'foo' instance would end up in the default trace.dat.1 as there is no output file specified.No, I was saying that -B will default to the top file, not the default file. If the top file is specified, then the -B will also be in that file.
Ok right. I think I got confused due to the possibility to have multiple
output files when expanding 'trace-cmd split <TOP_COMMANDS> <INSTANCE_COMMANDS>'
I think the description should match this then:
trace-cmd split [OTHER_OPTIONS] [--top [-b name]] [-o output_file] [-B instance_name [-t]]*
[start-time [end-time]]
# The '-t' option can only be used once per command line
or:
trace-cmd split <TOP_COMMANDS> <OUTPUT_COMMAND> <INSTANCE_COMMANDS>
TOP_COMMANDS :: nil | --top TOP_PARAMS
TOP_PARAMS :: nil | -b name
OUTPUT_COMMAND :: nil | -o output_file
INSTANCE_COMMANDS :: nil | -B name INSTANCE_PARAMS INSTANCE_COMMANDS
INSTANCE_PARAMS :: nil | -t
# INSTANCE_PARAMS can only expand to '-t' once.
I'm also not sure it is necessary to have a specific order for the
--top/-o/-B parameters. I should also work when they are unordered
if we limit the command to one output file:
- trace-cmd split -B foo -t --top -b old_top -o output.dat
- trace-cmd split -o output.dat -B foo -t --top -b old_top
- trace-cmd split -o output.dat --top -b old_top -B foo -t
should all be equivalent.
Regards,
Pierre
trace-cmd split --top -B foo -o buba.dat Will create a trace-dat.1 with just top in it, and buba.dat with just foo in it. trace-cmd split --top -B foo -o buba.dat -t Will create a trace-dat.1 with just top in it, and buba.dat with just foo in it (promoting foo to top instance) trace-cmd split --top -b foo -B foo -t Will make a trace.dat.1 file where the top instance becomes "foo" and the foo instance becomes the top instance. trace-cmd split -o buba.dat -B foo -tI think this would be parsed (cf. the syntax above) as: - <TOP_COMMANDS>: '-o buba.dat' - <INSTANCE_COMMANDS>: '-B foo -t' So there would be - a buba.dat file containing all the possible instances and the top instance - a default trace.data.1 containing the foo instance as the top instanceAgain, -o of the top file becomes the default for all the rest, unless they specify their own output file. -- Steve
|