[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Unified tracing buffer


    First I like to express my appreciation to you for writing this up. Not
    only that, but being the one person from keeping us from killing each
    other ;-)

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Martin Bligh wrote:

    > During kernel summit and Plumbers conference, Linus and others
    > expressed a desire for a unified
    > tracing buffer system for multiple tracing applications (eg ftrace,
    > lttng, systemtap, blktrace, etc) to use.
    > This provides several advantages, including the ability to interleave
    > data from multiple sources,
    > not having to learn 200 different tools, duplicated code/effort, etc.
    > Several of us got together last night and tried to cut this down to
    > the simplest usable system
    > we could agree on (and nobody got hurt!). This will form version 1.

    Yes, we kept the chairs on the floor the whole time.

    > I've sketched out a few
    > enhancements we know that we want, but have agreed to leave these
    > until version 2.
    > The answer to most questions about the below is "yes we know, we'll
    > fix that in version 2"
    > (or 3). Simplicity was the rule ...
    > Sketch of design. Enjoy flaming me. Code will follow shortly.
    > -------
    > We will support multiple buffers for different tracing systems, with
    > separate names, event id spaces.
    > Event ids are 16 bit, dynamically allocated.
    > A "one line of text" print function will be provided for each event,
    > or use the default (probably hex printf)
    > Will provide a "flight data recorder" mode, and a "spool to disk" mode.

    I don't remember talking about the "spool to disk" for version 1.
    We still want to do this? I thought we would have overwrite mode (flight
    data record), and a "throw all new data away when the producer fills the
    buffer before the consumer takes" mode.

    > Circular buffer per cpu, protected by per-cpu spinlock_irq
    > Word aligned records.

    As stated in another email "8 byte aligned" words should be fine.

    > Variable record length, header will start with length record.
    > Timestamps in fixed timebase, monotonically increasing (across all CPUs)
    > ---------------
    > allocate_buffer (name, size)
    > return buffer_handle
    > register_event (buffer_handle, event_id, print_function)
    > You can pass in a requested event_id from a fixed set, and
    > will be given it, or an error
    > 0 means allocate me one dynamically
    > returns event_id (or -E_ERROR)
    > record_event (buffer_handle, event_id, length, *buf)

    I was talking with Thomas about this, and we probably want (and I'm sure
    Mathieu and others would agree), a...

    event_handle = reserve_event(buffer_handle, event_id, length)

    as well as a..


    Oh, and all commands should start with the namespace.



    > OUTPUT
    > ------
    > Data will be output via debugfs, and provide the following output streams:
    > /debugfs/tracing/<name>/buffers/text
    > clear text stream (will merge the per-cpu streams via insertion
    > sort, and use the print functions)
    > /debugfs/tracing/<name>/buffers/binary[cpu_number]
    > per-cpu binary data

    Ah, I thought we were going to have:

    /debugfs/tracing/buffers/<name>/<buffer crap>

    and each tracer have

    /debugfs/tracing/<name>/<trace command crap>

    This way we can easily see all the buffers in one place that are allocated
    without having to see a tracer name first.

    The reason I like the way I propose, is that a utility that needs to read
    all the buffers, doesn't need to go into directories that don't even have
    buffers. Not all tracers will allocate a buffer.

    > -------
    > Sysfs style tree under debugfs
    > /debugfs/tracing/<name>/buffers/enabed <--- binary value
    > /debugfs/tracing/<name>/<event1>
    > /debugfs/tracing/<name>/<event2>
    > etc ...

    I wonder if we should make this another sub dir:


    > provides a way to enable/disable events, see what's available, and
    > what's enabled.
    > -------------------
    > No way to unregister buffers and events.
    > Will provide an unregister_buffer and unregister_event call

    I can see registering events, but shouldn't we "allocate" buffers?

    > Generating systemwide time is hard on some platforms
    > Yes. Time-based output provides a lot of simplicity for the user though
    > We won't support these platforms at first, we'll add functionality
    > to make it work for them later.
    > (plan based on tick-based ms timing, plus counter offset from that
    > if needed).
    > Spinlock_irq is ineffecient, and doesn't support tracing in NMIs
    > True. We'll implement a lockless scheme later (see lttng)
    > Putting a length record in every event is inefficient
    > True. Fixed record length with optional extensions is better, but
    > more complex. v2.
    > Putting a full timestamp rather than an offset in every event is inefficient
    > See above. True, but v2.
    > Relayfs already exists! use that!
    > People were universally not keen on that idea. Complexity, interface, etc.
    > We're also providing some higher level shared functions for time &
    > event ids.
    > There's no way to decode the binary data stream
    > Code will be shared from the kernel to decode it, so that we can
    > get the compact binary
    > format and decode it later. That code will be kept in the kernel
    > tree (it's a trivial piece of C).
    > Version 1.1 ;-)

    Sounds good,


    -- Steve

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-20 11:05    [W:0.030 / U:13.404 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site