[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090518083539.GC10687@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 10:35:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] convert block trace points to TRACE_EVENT()
* Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> TRACE_EVENT is a more generic way to define tracepoints. Doing so adds
> these new capabilities to this tracepoint:
>
> - zero-copy and per-cpu splice() tracing
> - binary tracing without printf overhead
> - structured logging records exposed under /debug/tracing/events
> - trace events embedded in function tracer output and other plugins
> - user-defined, per tracepoint filter expressions
> ...
Nice!
> Cons and problems:
>
> - no dev_t info for the output of plug, unplug_timer and unplug_io events.
> no dev_t info for getrq and sleeprq events if bio == NULL.
> no dev_t info for rq_abort,...,rq_requeue events if rq->rq_disk == NULL.
Cannot we output the numeric major:minor pairs?
> - for large packet commands, only 16 bytes of the command will be output.
> Because TRACE_EVENT doesn't support dynamic-sized arrays, though it
> supports dynamic-sized strings.
>
> - a packet command is converted to a string in TP_assign, not TP_print.
> While blktrace do the convertion just before output.
Couldnt we do a memcpy instead of the snprintf() in __dump_pdu()? We
dont actually interpret the bytes there. We could extend the
in-kernel printk format with a 'dump raw memory in hex' type of
format specifier.
OTOH, packet requests are rather rare, right? So going to ASCII
there results in a simpler interface. In the !blk_pc_request(rq)
common case we just return early without any snprintf overhead.
> - in blktrace, an event can have 2 different print formats, but
> a TRACE_EVENT has a unique format. (see the output of getrq
> and rq_insert)
Is this a problem?
I think a good way forward would be to benchmark the ioctl versus
the splice based TRACE_EVENT tracing (via some artificially high
rate event, to push things), and see where we are right now in terms
of overhead.
Ingo
--
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