lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-27 11:17    [W:0.054 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site