[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090827091454.GG12579@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:14:54 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, acme@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: blktrace ftrace plugin, was Re: Receive side performance issue
with multi-10-GigE and NUMA
On Thu, Aug 27 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 26 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:40:27PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > We are also converting non-trivial plugins to generic tracepoints. A
> > > > recent example are the system call tracepoints, but we also
> > > > converted blktrace and kmemtrace to generic tracepoints.
> > >
> > > On something semi-related: Any reason to keep the blktrace
> > > ftrace plugin around? I don't think there's much point in it.
> > > It only got added in 2.6.29, and all the blktrace tooling just
> > > uses the legacy ioctls. All new uses should just use the
> > > TRACE_EVENT output.
> >
> > Lets kill it.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I think we should keep the relayfs and ioctl compatibility bits
> though: blktrace has a mature user-space environment with many
> years of installed base.
>
> We could even move those bits back to block/blktrace_compat.c or so
> (after the ftrace plugin bits are removed), to make sure it's nicely
> isolated.
>
> What do you think?
Of course, we have to retain the ioctl/relayfs interface, it's been in
use for years. Keeping those out of the other trace/ bits sounds sane.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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