lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Patch 0/2] Renaming 'trace' to 'relay' and enhancements to 'relay'
    On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:22:39 +0530 "K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

    > On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:08:10AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
    > > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
    > >
    > > > [...]
    > > >> Please find the patches that enhance the 'trace' infrastructure
    > > >> (available in the -mm tree) and which introduce two new APIs
    > > >> relay_dump() and relay_printk().
    > > >> [...]
    > >
    > > > I'm a bit perplexed by these trace patches
    > > > (http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/trace-code [...]
    > > > Is it useful? Will it be useful? [...] I haven't heard much noise
    > > > about it and I'm struggling to justify merging it.
    > >
    > > Right.
    > >
    > > > Also, it's starting to look somewhat similar to ftrace, which also
    > > > provides sort of high-bandwidth per-cpu channels into userspace for
    > > > tracing purposes.
    > >
    > > Perhaps ftrace ought to use this facility for its debugfs-facing bulk
    > > data interface rather than an internal one that cannot be used by
    > > anyone else. Perhaps lttng could use it. Systemtap could. I believe
    > > a grand unification at this level was the idea.
    > >
    >
    > Hi Andrew,
    > The 'relay_printk' and 'relay_dump' interfaces were meant to
    > provide clutter-free tracing interface for the user who does not want to
    > care much beyond getting his trace output to user-space. It greatly
    > helps reduce the amount of work that a tracer needs to perform to setup
    > and tear-down. For e.g. when the Block I/O tracing code in
    > block/blktrace.c was converted to use these interfaces they resulted in
    > code-reduction of ~130 lines (http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/16/318).
    >
    > The default values can work fine for most tunables and are also exposed
    > to the user for overriding them.
    >
    > These interfaces will be helpful in almost all non-blocking tracers
    > (unlike usbmon which displays information in real-time) and uses the
    > scalable infrastructure provided by 'relay'.
    >
    > As pointed out by Frank earlier, most tracers (including ftrace) can be
    > made to use the above-mentioned interfaces resulting in substantial
    > savings in terms of LoC and increasing modularity/code re-usability.
    >

    Oh, OK, that's a good case.

    Was the result of your blktrace conversion compatible with existing
    interfaces?

    It would be higly persuasive if we were to see at least a prototype
    conversion of ftrace to use this new code (hint :))



    On a naming note: I am officially utterly bewildered by the number of
    subsystems which call themselves "trace" or "footrace" or "tracebar".
    And we have at least one more (ltt) (a footracebar!) heading in our
    direction.

    y:/usr/src/linux-2.6.27-rc2> find -type f -a -name '*trace*' | wc -l
    144

    (!)

    Is there something we can do to bring order out of chaos here?


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-08 07:43    [W:0.029 / U:91.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site