Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:34 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:47 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> finally, here's a new iteration of my copy_file_range patchset. I've an >> >> extra patch (not included in this RFC) that adds tracepoints to this >> >> syscall. I wanted to know if that's something we would like to start >> >> including in the kernel cephfs client. I can prepare a new rev that >> >> includes this extra patch. >> > >> > No, if we start introducing tracepoints, it'll have to be throught >> > libceph, rbd and ceph, replacing some of the douts. Tracepoints in >> > some places and douts in other places is a no go. On top of that there >> > is the whole tracepoint ABI stability mess, although it's less of an >> > issue for individual filesystems... >> > >> > In any case it doesn't belong in this series. >> > >> >> First of all, thanks a lot for your time reviewing this patchset. I've >> skimmed through your comments and I believe they all make perfect >> sense. I'll go through all of them and prepare a new revision in the >> next few days. > > I only looked at net/ceph part. > >> >> [ I still need to revisit those Op flags as I don't understand why I >> assumed they would both be using CEPH_OSD_OP_FLAG_FADVISE_*. I >> thought I saw a similar usage in the ceph code, but a quick grep >> didn't show anything. ] >> >> Regarding tracepoints, I agree that having both dynamic debug (dout) and >> tracepoints isn't a great idea. My preference would be to move to >> tracepoints but it would take a while to visit all the douts and come up >> with a set of patches that would convert the relevant ones to >> tracepoints (I'm sure there would be a lot of douts that could actually >> be dropped). >> >> Anyway, do you think it's worth opening a feature request so that some >> day this could be done? Or would you rather continue using dynamic >> debugging only? > > There is an old ticket for this - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/2374. > > With the addition of eBPF tracepoints became a lot more more useful, so > I'm all for a carefully designed initial set of tracepoints. Ah, awesome! I've added that ticket to my "watch" list ;-) Cheers, -- Luis
