Re: [EXT4 set 2][PATCH 5/5] cleanups: Export jbd2-debug via debugfs

[Mingming Cao]

On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 00:38 -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:30:25 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:48 -0400
> > Mingming Cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > > On Jun 07, 2007  23:45 -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote:
> > > > > The jbd2-debug file used to be located in /proc/sys/fs/jbd2-debug, but
> > > > > create_proc_entry() does not do lookups on file names with more that one
> > > > > directory deep.  This causes the entry creation to fail and hence, no proc
> > > > > file is created.  This patch moves the file to /proc/jbd2-degug.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The file could be move to /proc/fs/jbd2/jbd2-debug, but it would require
> > > > > some minor alterations to the jbd-stats patch.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think we really want to be adding top-level files in /proc.
> > > > What about using the "debugfs" filesystem (not to be confused with
> > > > the e2fsprogs 'debugfs' command)?
> > > 
> > > How about this then?  Moved the file to use debugfs as well as having
> > > the nice effect of removing more lines than what it adds.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jose R. Santos <jrs@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Please clean up the changelog.
> > 
> > The changelog should include information about the location and the content
> > of these debugfs files.  it should provide any instructions which users
> > will need to be able to create and use those files.
> 
> Will fix.
> 
> > Alternatively (and preferably) do this via an update to
> > Documentation/filesystems/ext4.txt.
> 
> Seems like I also need to update the doc on Kconfig as well.  Do you
> prefer this in separate patches? (current patch, kconfig patch, ext4
> doc update patch?
> 
> > >  fs/jbd2/journal.c    |   62    20 +    42 -    0 !
> > >  include/linux/jbd2.h |    2    1 +     1 -     0 !
> > >  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Again, this patch isn't in Ted's kernel.org directory and hasn't been in -mm.
> > 
> > Apart from the lack of testing and review which this causes, it means I
> > can't just do `pushpatch name-of-this-patch' and look at it in tkdiff.  So
> > I squint at the diff, but that's harder when the diff wasn't prepared with
> > `diff -p'.  Oh well.
> 
> Will fix.
> 
> > 
> > > Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.22-rc4.orig/fs/jbd2/journal.c	2007-06-11 16:16:18.000000000 -0700
> > > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/jbd2/journal.c	2007-06-11 16:36:10.000000000 -0700
> > > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
> > >  #include <linux/kthread.h>
> > >  #include <linux/poison.h>
> > >  #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
> > > +#include <linux/debugfs.h>
> > >  
> > >  #include <asm/uaccess.h>
> > >  #include <asm/page.h>
> > > @@ -1954,60 +1955,37 @@
> > >   * /proc tunables
> > >   */
> > >  #if defined(CONFIG_JBD2_DEBUG)
> > > -int jbd2_journal_enable_debug;
> > > +u16 jbd2_journal_enable_debug;
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(jbd2_journal_enable_debug);
> > >  #endif
> > >  
> > > -#if defined(CONFIG_JBD2_DEBUG) && defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS)
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_JBD2_DEBUG) && defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS)
> > 
> > Has this been compile-tested with CONFIG_DEBUGFS=n?
> 
> I think I did, but honestly don't remember.  Will check with the new
> patch. :) 
> 

Yes, I remember I did, that discovered some inconsistency in ext4 code,
which has already been fixed.

> > >  
> > > -#define create_jbd_proc_entry() do {} while (0)
> > > -#define jbd2_remove_jbd_proc_entry() do {} while (0)
> > > +#define jbd2_create_debugfs_entry() do {} while (0)
> > > +#define jbd2_remove_debugfs_entry() do {} while (0)
> > 
> > I suggest that these be converted to (preferable) inline functions while
> > you're there.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > >  #endif
> > >  
> > > @@ -2067,7 +2045,7 @@
> > >  	ret = journal_init_caches();
> > >  	if (ret != 0)
> > >  		jbd2_journal_destroy_caches();
> > > -	create_jbd_proc_entry();
> > > +	jbd2_create_debugfs_entry();
> > >  	return ret;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > @@ -2078,7 +2056,7 @@
> > >  	if (n)
> > >  		printk(KERN_EMERG "JBD: leaked %d journal_heads!\n", n);
> > >  #endif
> > > -	jbd2_remove_jbd_proc_entry();
> > > +	jbd2_remove_debugfs_entry();
> > >  	jbd2_journal_destroy_caches();
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4/include/linux/jbd2.h
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.22-rc4.orig/include/linux/jbd2.h	2007-06-11 16:16:18.000000000 -0700
> > > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc4/include/linux/jbd2.h	2007-06-11 16:35:25.000000000 -0700
> > > @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
> > >   * CONFIG_JBD2_DEBUG is on.
> > >   */
> > >  #define JBD_EXPENSIVE_CHECKING
> > 
> > JBD2?
> >
> > > -extern int jbd2_journal_enable_debug;
> > > +extern u16 jbd2_journal_enable_debug;
> > 
> > Why was this made 16-bit?  To save 2 bytes?  Could have saved 3 if we're
> > going to do that.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > Shoudln't all this debug info be a per-superblock thing rather than
> > kernel-wide?
> 
> I don't think it is worth pursuing this feature since this seems to
> have been broken for a while now (its been there since the first git
> revission in ext3) and nobody has noticed it until now.  It could be
> address on a later patch though, since the initial purpose of the patch
> was to fix the broken JBD2_DEBUG option. Of course, this may not be
> clearly express in the changelog. :)
> 
> -JRS

-
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/