[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Patch] Tracing/ftrace: Adds a marker to allow user comments
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 13:29:40 -0400 (EDT)
Steven Rostedt <> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > Steven,
> >
> > is there a logic behind trace_seq_print_cont() printing the terminating
> > newline only, when there actually is no TRACE_CONT entry?
> Actually, that case is more of an anomaly than the correct. It means
> that somehow the print statement wanted to continue, but did not. This
> means that the print statement probably did not finish the line, and
> that we should do a newline to make sure the next entry starts on a
> new line.

Oh, I never thought it from that point of view.

> > static void
> > trace_seq_print_cont(struct trace_seq *s, struct trace_iterator *iter)
> > {
> > struct trace_array *tr = iter->tr;
> > struct trace_array_cpu *data = tr->data[iter->cpu];
> > struct trace_entry *ent;
> >
> > ent = trace_entry_idx(tr, data, iter, iter->cpu);
> > if (!ent || ent->type != TRACE_CONT) {
> > trace_seq_putc(s, '\n');
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > do {
> > trace_seq_printf(s, "%s", ent->cont.buf);
> > __trace_iterator_increment(iter, iter->cpu);
> > ent = trace_entry_idx(tr, data, iter, iter->cpu);
> > } while (ent && ent->type == TRACE_CONT);
> > }
> Because we do a merge sort of the entries in each CPU buffer, after we
> get the next entry to print, we increment that iteration buffer. This
> means that trace_entry_idx() will return the next entry field after
> we got the iter->ent. This is also why we use iter->ent instead of
> just calling trace_entry_idx. This keeps the merge sort simpler.

Yes, I forgot the per-cpu buffers. When merging you want the first one
wrt. timestamp, and when continuing you want the next on that cpu's

> > Here it uses trace_entry_idx() to get 'ent'. What's the difference to
> > iter->ent? I don't understand how trace_entry_idx() works, but looking
> > at how it is used, it must return the pointer to the *next* entry in
> > the ring buffer. So I don't understand the name of the function, and I
> > don't see a call to __trace_iterator_increment(), which is confusing.
> iter->ent is the entry to be used in the "show" function. When we found
> that entry, we incremented the buffer to get it ready for the next
> merge sort.
> When we get to show, iter->ent is the entry to print, and if we use
> iter_entry_idx() that will point to the next entry in that buffer that
> will be used next time. I also did this to make it easier for the latency
> format be able to calculate the notations (like the '!').
> > If contrary to the assumption, 'ent' is not a continuation, it prints
> > the terminating newline. This is an exceptional case, as the original
> > entry was marked as having continuation entries.
> Right, this is somehow an entry was flagged as continue, but it did not.
> It is probably a bug in the code, and instead of writing a strange format,
> where the next entry continued on the same line, I chose to let the
> entry go onto the next line.
> > The normal case then is to execute the do-while, until it hits a
> > non-continuation entry. Here it does *not* print the terminating newline.
> Correct. The reason is that the ftrace_printk() call should have contained
> its own new line. I could also add a check (and probably will) to see if
> the printk did end with a newline, and add one if it did not.

My first idea was to filter out all newlines from messages, making a
message a single line, and then force a newline, but now I realize
that would be an exception to the printk convention. Maybe I should
just start a new line in the output, when I get a newline :-)
Although that probably means my version of trace_seq_print_cont() must
live in trace.c, which IMHO is over-crowded already.

But then there's a small chance the whole output of a single
TRACE_PRINT entry might not fit into one trace_seq ever, since each
line in mmiotrace has a prologue. Oh well, can't win always, I'll just
drop what doesn't fit into output.

Hmm, it already does that, doesn't it, if the output does not fit into
trace_seq buffer. There might be a corner case...

> > Steven, could you explain what is going on here?
> Just did ;-)
> Hope it helps,

Oh yes, thank you very much :-)

btw. How do you feel about moving the #ifdef CONFIG_MMIOTRACE functions
from trace.c to trace_mmiotrace.c and unstatifying all the functions
they need? Seems some of them are inline, and the spinlock stuff just
looks so... raw :-)

Pekka Paalanen

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-08 19:21    [W:0.048 / U:8.620 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site