[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130211231411.GA10731@dastard>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:14:11 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: use module parameters instead of debugfs for
mballoc_debug
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:54:28AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 09:48:01AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >
> > As another thought, did you consider using dynamic debug for this, or is that
> > too much trickiness? Might be nice since usually a bug reporter won't have
> > a kernel built with CONFIG_EXT4_DEBUG . . .
>
> I had assumed that the long term direction was to use tracepoints,
> which also has the advantage of not requiring kernels built with
> CONFIG_EXT4_DEBUG.
>
> Hmm.... one thing though is if we want bug reporters to use
> tracepoints (as opposed to just developers), we'll need to have some
> pre-made shell scripts to make it easy for non-developers to enable
> tracepoints for various problems.
FYI, we have a quick outline of how to gather a basic event trace
using trace-cmd in the XFS FAQ for this purpose:
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F
If a more complex/finer grained trace is required to further isolate
the problem, we generally then tell the user exactly what to run as
the events/devices that need to be traced are case-specific. Seeing
the users are already familiar with the basic tracing technique at
this point it seems to work fine...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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