[v3,0/2] Optimize pid filters and add --no-filter option

Message

Slavomir Kaslev April 15, 2019, 11 p.m. UTC

This patchset optimizes how pid filters are expressed and makes it less likely
that we overflow ftrace filters' size limit of one page.

Changes since v2:

Append exclude rules with &&

Changes since v1:

Add missing tags
Fix append_filter_pid_range() callers to pass valid range as [min,max]


Slavomir Kaslev (2):
  trace-cmd: Optimize how pid filters are expressed
  trace-cmd: Add --no-filter option to not filter recording processes

 tracecmd/trace-record.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 tracecmd/trace-usage.c  |   1 +
 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)

Comments

Phil Auld April 16, 2019, 1:22 p.m. UTC | #1

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 02:00:14AM +0300 Slavomir Kaslev wrote:
> This patchset optimizes how pid filters are expressed and makes it less likely
> that we overflow ftrace filters' size limit of one page.
> 
> Changes since v2:
> 
> Append exclude rules with &&
> 
> Changes since v1:
> 
> Add missing tags
> Fix append_filter_pid_range() callers to pass valid range as [min,max]
> 
> 
> Slavomir Kaslev (2):
>   trace-cmd: Optimize how pid filters are expressed
>   trace-cmd: Add --no-filter option to not filter recording processes
> 
>  tracecmd/trace-record.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  tracecmd/trace-usage.c  |   1 +
>  2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.19.1
> 


This version is also working for my use case.  The logic in the filter
does show the recording thread pids in the sched switch event, at least 
when switching to/from a non-excluded process.  But I think that's 
desired.

The --no-filter option works as expected.


Acked-by: Phil Auld <[e-mail]>


Thanks,
Phil
--

Steven Rostedt April 16, 2019, 9:39 p.m. UTC | #2

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:22:54 -0400
Phil Auld <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This version is also working for my use case.  The logic in the filter
> does show the recording thread pids in the sched switch event, at least 
> when switching to/from a non-excluded process.  But I think that's 
> desired.
> 
> The --no-filter option works as expected.
> 
> 
> Acked-by: Phil Auld <[e-mail]>
> 

Could we get a Tested-by: from you for this series?

Thanks!

-- Steve

Phil Auld April 17, 2019, 12:29 a.m. UTC | #3

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 05:39:09PM -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:22:54 -0400
> Phil Auld <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > This version is also working for my use case.  The logic in the filter
> > does show the recording thread pids in the sched switch event, at least 
> > when switching to/from a non-excluded process.  But I think that's 
> > desired.
> > 
> > The --no-filter option works as expected.
> > 
> > 
> > Acked-by: Phil Auld <[e-mail]>
> > 
> 
> Could we get a Tested-by: from you for this series?

The second one for sure. I did it both with and without and
saw the difference.

I was not comfortable with that for the first because I really
only tested it in my setup on one machine (160 cpus). I didn't do
really thorough testing. If that's enough for you then sure :)

Tested-by: Phil Auld <[e-mail]>


Cheers,
Phil


> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- Steve

--

Steven Rostedt April 17, 2019, 12:49 p.m. UTC | #4

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 20:29:10 -0400
Phil Auld <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Could we get a Tested-by: from you for this series?  
> 
> The second one for sure. I did it both with and without and
> saw the difference.
> 
> I was not comfortable with that for the first because I really
> only tested it in my setup on one machine (160 cpus). I didn't do
> really thorough testing. If that's enough for you then sure :)
> 
> Tested-by: Phil Auld <[e-mail]>

I'll just put it on the second one then.

Thanks!

-- Steve