MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211129231830.1117781-1-namhyung@kernel.org> <YaY3JqOQ2XE22VId@kernel.org>
 <CAM9d7cjXncRRsH1Zf_yVrLeaYiHXLFM29sx0MYPAZ8HAsZaggw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM9d7cjXncRRsH1Zf_yVrLeaYiHXLFM29sx0MYPAZ8HAsZaggw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:36:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CABPqkBQgr3ck_jnFbdLOKgpzrz4RhE3svTvkiOLY9KgvjQjU9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCHSET 0/5] perf ftrace: Implement function latency
 histogram (v1)
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:58 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Arnaldo,
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 6:37 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Em Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 03:18:25PM -0800, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I've implemented 'latency' subcommand in the perf ftrace command to
> > > show a histogram of function latency.
> > >
> > > To handle new subcommands, the existing functionality is moved to
> > > 'trace' subcommand while preserving backward compatibility of not
> > > having a subcommand at all (defaults to 'trace').
> > >
> > > The latency subcommand accepts a target (kernel, for now) function
> > > with -T option and shows a histogram like below:
> >
> > Humm, wouldn't be interesting to shorten this by having a new 'perf
> > flat' (function latency) tool, on the same level as 'perf ftrace' and
> > leave 'perf ftrace' to just being a convenient perf interface to what
> > ftrace provides?
>
> That would be fine.  I also think 'perf ftrace latency' is
> bit too long.  But if we would add a new feature
> like argdist (in BCC) later, I thought it'd be nice being
> a subcommand in the perf ftrace together.
>
> But it's up to you.  I'll make a change if you prefer
> 'flat' (or how about 'fnlat' instead?).
>
I am not too fond of the flat option because as we had more bpf tools
like function latency, then we keep extending the list of commands
each with a small span which is different
from what we have right now.