[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090409025507.GB24946@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 23:55:07 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: Multiple Tracers
Em Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:11:48AM +0800, Li Zefan escreveu:
> CC: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
>
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 15:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>> * Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> A little while back I posted a RFC patch which added gfs2 glock
> >>>> tracing to blktrace. There was a suggestion that I should look
> >>>> instead at the generic tracing code and add a new tracer, but I've
> >>>> come up with a couple of issues along the way.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think from what I can see that its only possible to run a single
> >>>> tracer at once, so running blktrace (for example) would preclude
> >>>> me from also tracing gfs2's glocks at the same time. Also, I can
> >>>> see no mechanism by which I could ensure the sequencing between
> >>>> the blktrace and glock traces other than exporting the blktrace
> >>>> sequence number, even if running multiple tracers at the same time
> >>>> was possible.
> >>> There's a recent addition: the EVENT_TRACE() facility. Would that
> >>> suit your purposes?
> >>>
> >>> Ingo
> >> If I can get both blktrace and glock trace info from it, then yes.
> >> I thought that the blktrace output went either via the original
> >> relayfs path, or via its own tracer so that it wasn't possible to
> >> use it and the event trace facility at the same time, unless I use
> >> blktrace via relayfs. From what I've read I thought that probably
> >> the relayfs interface for blktrace might eventually be removed in
> >> favour of the generic tracing interface, but I'm not 100% sure of
> >> that, so perhaps someone can confirm the plans in that area?
> >
> > Tom Zanussi (Cc:-ed) recently converted the blktrace tracepoints to
>
> I guess you mean Arnaldo <acme@...hat.com> ;)
Nope, Tom:
Message-Id: <1235725261.8512.89.camel@...rm-linux>
> > a tracing framework - and i think much of that could be reused to
> > add EVENT_TRACE() tracepoints to blktrace too.
> >
> > Tom, what's your take on this?
> >
> > In general, this is the direction we want to take: EVENT_TRACE()
> > tracepoints that can be used in a generic way, in any tracer.
> >
>
> Actually we've planed to do this, and for other tracers.
Yeah, being able to mix all kinds of tracers is the way to go.
- Arnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists