[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9bfb4c4bd1415a8ce527a913730672508a8e8330.camel@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 12:53:57 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>,
jbaron@...mai.com, mingo@...hat.com,
Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>, kernel@...s.com,
corbet@....net, pmladek@...e.com, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
john.ogness@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dynamic debug: allow printing to trace event
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 15:32 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 08:53:25 -0700
> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> > > The print buffer is statically allocated and managed using code borrowed
> > > from __ftrace_trace_stack() and is limited to 256 bytes (four of these
> > > are allocated per CPU to handle the various contexts); anything larger
> > > will be truncated.
> >
> > There is an effort to avoid using trace_printk and the like
> > so perhaps this feature should have the same compile time
> > guard.
>
> No, this is fine for being in a production kernel. Basically, these are
> simply debug printk()s that can also be put into the trace buffer. The
> key difference to trace_printk() is that they are an event that needs
> to be enabled to write into the buffer.
It just seems like a backdoor way to convert various pr_debug functions
(dev_dbg/netdev_dbg, et al) into tracing.
What's the real value? Timing data? Something else?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists