[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290008466.1921.21.camel@elnicho>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:41:06 -0600
From: Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, 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>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.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'
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 15:37 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 15:11 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > The idea was to not let the filter engine work on the trace data (once
> > > its gathered) but on the trace argument right at the beginning of the
> > > tracepoint callchain, since some of the trace data is an expression of
> > > the trace argument (say next->prio instead of next), the trace
> > > expression wouldn't stay invariant, you'd have to write a different
> > > filter for the same effect.
> > >
> > > So I think it would be wise to make this change sooner rather than
> > > later.
> >
> > Also, I see a lot of overlap with the dynamic probes stuff which needs
> > the help of magic dwarves to come up with the right data to gather.
> >
> > Merging the dynamic tracepoint and filter stuff would be nice, there's
> > no way you can express next->prio without the help of these short
> > buggers with large axes.
> >
> > The trouble is that the dynamic tracepoint stuff is privileged for good
> > reasons, try next+0x1000000 and you're out in the woods, priv. only
> > filters otoh just doesn't sound too hot.
> >
> > Another nasty thing is that you actually need to have these dwarves
> > present, which means having the -debug package installed.
>
> That sounds utterly insane for the basic use case where you trace
> application context. There is no point to filter out the tracepoints,
> really. Postprocessing can do that just fine.
>
> I consider myself a power user of tracing, but hell I never used any
> of those filters in a real use case. awk, grep, scripting languages do
> just a better job and you don't miss any data just because you got
> your filter expression slightly wrong. Postprocessing always wins in
> that regard.
>
> The only reason why these filters might make sense is to reduce the
> trace volume on system wide traces in production environments, but
> that's a completely different story. These scenarios can do with the
> dynamic tracepoint stuff and the custom filtering w/o putting the
> burden on the majority of users.
>
Yeah, in my mind, the main point of the filters was to be a 'blunt
force' instrument preventing userspace from being overwhelmed by events.
The real filtering would happen in userspace with e.g. real scripting
languages.
Tom
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
--
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