[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080812152113.9470.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:33:02 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tracepoints in ext4 (and/or ext3?)
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 03:18:07PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > As just an initial inquiry, I'm wondering how people would feel about
> > putting some tracepoints (trace_mark()) into ext[34] for monitoring the
> > fs behavior.
>
> I think it's a great idea! Do you have some specific tracepoints in
> mind?
I think two viewpoint exist. An administrator want to
- performance mesurement
- which IO aborted it, if any error happend.
In addition, OS vendor want to
- split out fs problem and device problem
So, candidate of tracepints are
- jbd activity
- boundary activity between fs and block layer
I don't fs expert, it is just idea.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists