[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20231212080726.a8d1f614e65c3b49ff1d9fbd@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:07:26 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Trace Kernel <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace_seq: Increase the buffer size to almost two pages
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 13:28:37 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:46:27 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > By increasing the trace_seq buffer to almost two pages, it can now print
> > > out the first line.
> > >
> > > This also subtracts the rest of the trace_seq fields from the buffer, so
> > > that the entire trace_seq is now PAGE_SIZE aligned.
> >
> > Ok, but I just a bit concern about the memory consumption.
> > Since this is very specific case, can we make it configurable later?
>
> I was concerned about this too, but it looks like it's allocated and later
> freed in every location except for a couple of instances.
>
> One is "tracepoint_print_iter" which is used to pipe tracepoints to printk.
> I think we can possibly make that allocated too.
>
> The other is in ftrace_dump, which I don't think we can easily allocate
> that. Although, we could have it allocated at boot up if
> ftrace_dump_on_oops() is enabled.
Can we reallocate it when we detect such bigger event entry in the path
of trace_marker write? If any issue happens in the reallocation, we will
not finish (commit) such big event in dumping buffer anyway.
>
> Another KTODO?
Yes, I think so.
Thanks,
>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- Steve
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists