Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Improve visibility of writeback

[Kent Overstreet]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 09:31:57AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Kent.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 03:24:35PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > fs/bcachefs/time_stats.c has some code that's going to be moving out to
> > lib/ at some point, after I switch it to MAD; if you could hook that up
> > as well to a few points we could see at a glance if there are stalls
> > happening in the writeback path.
> 
> Using BPF (whether through bcc or bpftrace) is likely a better approach for
> this sort of detailed instrumentation. Fixed debug information is useful and
> it's also a common occurrence that they don't quite reveal the full picture
> of what one's trying to understand and one needs to dig a bit deeper, wider,
> aggregate data in a different way, or whatever.
> 
> So, rather than adding more fixed infrastructure, I'd suggest adding places
> which can easily be instrumented using the existing tools (they are really
> great once you get used to them) whether that's tracepoints or just
> strategically placed noinline functions.

Collecting latency numbers at various key places is _enormously_ useful.
The hard part is deciding where it's useful to collect; that requires
intimate knowledge of the code. Once you're defining those collection
poitns statically, doing it with BPF is just another useless layer of
indirection.

The time stats stuff I wrote is _really_ cheap, and you really want this
stuff always on so that you've actually got the data you need when
you're bughunting.