Re: [PATCH 3/3] writeback: tracking subsystems causing writeback

[Andi Kleen]

Michael Rubin <mrubin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> I agree. This would put the kernel in a box a bit. Some of them
> (sys_sync, periodic writeback, free_more_memory) I feel are generic
> enough concepts that with some rewording of the labels they could be
> exposed with no issue. "Balance_dirty_pages" is an example where that
> won't work.

Yes some rewording would be good.

> Are there alternatives to this? Maybe tracepoints that are compiled to be on?
> A CONFIG_WRITEBACK_DEBUG that would expose this file?

The classic way is to put it into debugfs which has a appropiate
disclaimer.

(although I fear we're weaning apps that depend on debugfs too
The growing ftrace user space code seems to all depend on debugfs)

> Having this set of info readily available and collected makes
> debugging a lot easier. But I admit I am not sure the best way to
> expose them.

Maybe we just need a simpler writeback path that is not as complicated
to debug. 

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/