linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101117131023.GE27063@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:10:23 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 13:53 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:35:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 09:30 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > For example I'm currently working with dozens of trace_printk() and I would be 
> > > > > very happy to turn some of them off half of the time.
> > > > 
> > > > I guess we could try such a patch. If you send a prototype i'd be interested in 
> > > > testing it out.
> > > 
> > > I don't see the point, the kernel shouldn't contain any trace_printk()s
> > > to begin with..
> > 
> > 
> > It's oriented toward developers. Those who use dozens of tracepoints in
> > their tree because they are debugging something or developing a new feature,
> > they might to deactivate/reactivate some of these independant points.
> > 
> > This can also apply to dynamic_printk of course.
> > 
> > Well, the very first and main point is to standardize trace_printk into
> > a trace event so that it gets usable by perf tools. I have been asked many
> > times "how to use trace_printk() with perf?".
> 
> Thing is, since its these dev who add the trace_printk()s to begin with, I don't 
> see the point in splitting them out, if you didn't want them why did you add them 
> to begin with?!

That's a common workflow: lots of printks (trace_printk's) put all around the code - 
and sometimes one set of tracepoints is needed, one time another set.

_If_ we succeed in presenting them like Frederic suggested it, and if we make the 
turning on/off _simpler_ (no kernel modification) and faster (no kernel reboot) via 
the tooling, people like Frederic might start using it.

I dont think we should fight the workflow itself - it makes sense.

The only question is whether we can represent it all in a nicer fashion than 'modify 
the source code and reboot'. If we cannot then there's no point - but i'm not sure 
about it and Frederic seems to be convinced too that he can make such a switch 
on/off facility intuitive. We'll only see if we try it.

Also, i dont see any harm - do you?

Thanks,

	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/