[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080812081954.5f5eeb10@gara>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:19:54 -0500
From: "Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tracepoints in ext4 (and/or ext3?)
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:18:07 -0500
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> 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.
>
> Good/bad/indifferent?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Eric
Good idea, although Im not sure if ext[34] is the best place we should
start putting markers though.
For ext[34], I would start by putting markers on VFS entry points into
ext4 and journal activity. For these to be useful though, we also need
markers in the following places:
iochedulers
elv_next_request()
elv_add_request()
elv_completed_request()
scsi
scsi_prep_fn()
scsi_dispatch_cmd()
scsi_done()
scsi_io_completion()
Entry and exit points of all IO system calls.
AND
The VFS call for these system calls.
bio
generic_make_request()
bio_endio()
Scheduler
idle_balance() Personally, I find it useful to know when a
machine goes idle because is stalling on IO
Im sure Im missing something but this should be a good start to be able
to track the life of a pending IO to see where deficiencies lie.
-JRS
--
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