Re: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'

[Darren Hart]

On 11/17/2010 10:29 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 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.

Seems reasonable.


--
Darren Hart
Yocto Linux Kernel
--
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/