On 22/02/23 12:53PM, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 23-02-22 15:41:59, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > > On 22/02/23 10:40AM, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Wed 23-02-22 02:04:11, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > > > > This adds two more tracepoints for ext4_fc_track_template() & > > > > ext4_fc_cleanup() which are helpful in debugging some fast_commit issues. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > So why is this more useful than trace_ext4_fc_track_range() and other > > > tracepoints? I don't think it provides any more information? What am I > > > missing? > > > > Thanks Jan for all the reviews. > > > > So ext4_fc_track_template() adds almost all required information > > (including the caller info) in this one trace point along with transaction tid > > which is useful for tracking issue similar to what is mentioned in Patch-9. > > > > (race with if inode is part of two transactions tid where jbd2 full commit > > may begin for txn n-1 while inode is still in sbi->s_fc_q[MAIN]) > > I understand commit tid is interesting but cannot we just add it to > tracepoints like trace_ext4_fc_track_range() directly? It would seem useful > to have it there and when it is there, the need for > ext4_fc_track_template() is not really big. I don't care too much but Yes make sense. Sure, I will look into adding this info to existing trace points then. With that I think trace_ext4_fc_track_template() won't be required. Will add those changes in V2. > this tracepoint looked a bit superfluous to me. > > > And similarly ext4_fc_cleanup() helps with that information about which tid > > completed and whether it was called from jbd2 full commit or from fast_commit. > > Yeah, that one is clear. Will retain trace_ext4_fc_cleanup() then. -ritesh > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> > SUSE Labs, CR
