[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:13:40PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:10:33PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Yeah I have a strange workflow. I'm working on that CPU isolation thing
> > and I have dozens of trace_printk all over the place for tons of
> > things. And everytime I remove one to unwind some output or to focus
> > on another one, I often have to restore it later because I need it
> > again. Usually I even just comment it out instead of removing it.
> What I do for my file system development work is to drop in
> trace_printk's everywhere, since they are lightweight and don't slow
> down the system much. Then when the system wedges, I use sysrq-z to
> get a "flight data recorder" printout of what happened up til the
> system hung.
> I love the fact that the ring buffer is in "overwrite" mode (aka
> flight data recorder mode), and hope this doesn't go away.
> Per line filtering is also great, but very often when I'm interacting
> with the block I/O layer, if something screws up, what happens is "and
> then whole machine locks up", and sysrq-z is literally all I have.

Yeah all agreed.

Steve proposed to keep the current trace_printk() implementation that relies
on ftrace but rename in into ftrace_printk(). So that we can develop a new
trace_printk() based on trace_event interface and in the meantime keep the
old version in case something messes up with the new thing.

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-17 19:31    [W:0.085 / U:2.412 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site