[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48A196C6.10300@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:57:26 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: "Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
CC: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tracepoints in ext4 (and/or ext3?)
Jose R. Santos wrote:
> 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.
Sure, but there have already been patches floated for the vfs, and ...
> 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()
I think there's talk of changing the blktrace infrastructure to use markers.
> 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.
http://lists-archives.org/linux-kernel/16489694-lttng-tracepoint-instrumentation-fs.html
> 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.
Yep, this all sounds good.
Thanks,
-Eric
--
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