Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:14:54 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: blktrace ftrace plugin, was Re: Receive side performance issue with multi-10-GigE and NUMA |
| |
On Thu, Aug 27 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 26 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:40:27PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > We are also converting non-trivial plugins to generic tracepoints. A > > > > recent example are the system call tracepoints, but we also > > > > converted blktrace and kmemtrace to generic tracepoints. > > > > > > On something semi-related: Any reason to keep the blktrace > > > ftrace plugin around? I don't think there's much point in it. > > > It only got added in 2.6.29, and all the blktrace tooling just > > > uses the legacy ioctls. All new uses should just use the > > > TRACE_EVENT output. > > > > Lets kill it. > > Agreed. > > I think we should keep the relayfs and ioctl compatibility bits > though: blktrace has a mature user-space environment with many > years of installed base. > > We could even move those bits back to block/blktrace_compat.c or so > (after the ftrace plugin bits are removed), to make sure it's nicely > isolated. > > What do you think?
Of course, we have to retain the ioctl/relayfs interface, it's been in use for years. Keeping those out of the other trace/ bits sounds sane.
-- Jens Axboe
| |