Re: Tools type sub directories

Brendan Gregg

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 4:13 AM, allan mcaleavy via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@...> wrote:

As the amount of tools start to grow should we be looking to create subdirs per tool type to make it easier for other users? Looking at what we have I would categorise the tools as follows. 

Kernel / Tracing

Not quite there yet, but another ten tools or so and it's going to get onerous to pick through a long listing. I'll take a swing at this myself -- I've already had directories in mind for these (as with other toolkits). And as with other toolkits, I've found it handy to have a "bin" directory of symlinks, where one can go for grepping every script.


However some tools such as pidpersec / execsnoop / memleak etc could live in a tracing context as well. Any thoughts on this or is everyone happy with the current setup? 


On 12 Feb 2016, at 18:41, Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Allan McAleavy <allan.mcaleavy@...> wrote:
Hi Folks,

Has there been a consensus on the way forward with the subdir under tools?

Yes, lets have tools/old, to keep it simple.
I have updated biosnoop and bashreadline to use make use of bpf_perf_event_output and was looking to create a PR.

Great! I've been using bpf_perf_event_output() too (see my PR for ext4slower/xfslower), and had a few nits I need to file tickets on (I labeled some things in the code as "workaround", like it not liking u32's in the data_t). So if you ran into similar issues, you weren't alone.

Should I include a move of the current tools to a subdir. If moving I would look to update each of the appropriate man pages with additional info under see also or stability section along the lines of "For some older kernel revisions bpf_perf_event_output may be unavailable, please check for this tool in tools/xyz_dir/"

Sounds good. Just put the tool into tools/old, and add "This makes use of a Linux 4.5 feature (bpf_perf_event_output()); for kernels older than 4.5, see the version under tools/old, which uses an older mechanism."



On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Alexei Starovoitov via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@...> wrote:
makes sense to me.
may be new subdir under tools/ ?
Since we have few links on the web pointing to github/iovisor/bcc/tools/

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Brendan Gregg via iovisor-dev
<iovisor-dev@...> wrote:
> I'm considering creating a directory in bcc called /oldtools, for some older
> versions that work on the 4.4 kernel.
> With bpf_perf_event_output() in 4.5, there are many tools that I (or
> someone) should change to ditch bpf_trace_printk() and use
> bpf_perf_event_output() instead, which is more efficient and allows
> multi-user access. Great!
> However...
> Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial Xerus) will be out soon, and likely on the 4.4
> kernel. Ubuntu is not the only distribution out there, but a widely used
> one, including by Netflix. And, given this is an LTS release, I'd expect us
> to see it in use for a year or more. That gives me hesitation to break these
> tools for a wide audience, especially one who may be experiencing their
> first impression of bcc & eBPF.
> So I'm considering putting some older versions of tools (like execsnoop,
> opensnoop) in a temporary /oldtools directory, as I bpf_perf_event_output()
> all the things. In the distant future, we can delete /oldtools. Sound ok?
> Brendan
> _______________________________________________
> iovisor-dev mailing list
> iovisor-dev@...
iovisor-dev mailing list

iovisor-dev mailing list

Join to automatically receive all group messages.