Re: the difference between btt and blkparse

[Xuekun Hu <xuekun.hu@xxxxxxxxx>]

Oh. I think I misunderstood the option usage.

I orginally used "blkparse -i trace.blkparse.* -d bp.bin". However it
handled number of cpu times, instead of one. "blkparse -i
trace.blkparse.0" and "blkparse -i trace.blkparse.1" have the same
results.

While for btt, I orginally used "btt -i trace.blkparse.*". However the
result was only to handle trace.blkparse.0, instead of others. So the
two results were not match.

Now I will stick to the standard workflow.

Thanks for your help.

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Alan D. Brunelle <Alan.Brunelle@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 19:26 +0800, Xuekun Hu wrote:
>> Hi, Guys
>>
>> >From the doc, the standard work-flow for btt is to handle the binary
>> output from "blkparse -d". I found btt can also directly handle the
>> raw trace file generated by blktrace. However I found the two results
>> are not match.
>
> 'btt' is intended only to be run w/ the output from blkparse -d : the
> fact that "it kind of works" with straight blktrace output only means
> that the results will be "kind of right". :-)
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrace" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html