Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:39:56AM -0500, Steve Dickson escreveu: >> K.Prasad wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 09:27:30AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: >>>> Greg Banks <gnb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> >>>>> Steve Dickson wrote: >>>>>> So the ultimate goal would be to replace all the dprintks with trace points >>>>>> but still be able to enable them through the rpcdebug command >>>>> I have a patch which changes the definition of the dprintk() macro (but >>>>> *not* dprintk() callsites) to allow enabling and disabling individual >>>>> dprintk() statements through a /proc/ interface. Would you be >>>>> interested in that? >>>> That sounds like duplicated work. How does it differ from Jason Baron's >>>> dynamic printk patches (which I believe are now upstream)? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Jeff >>> Introducing/converting one of the accepted methods of static >>> instrumentation - like tracepoints would help more users (whether >>> in-kernel or otherwise) harness them. >>> >>> Steve, >>> Would it help convert the systemtap script (nfs_mount.stp) in >>> Patch - 5 into a kernel module (perhaps in samples/ directory) to bring >>> an in-kernel user of these tracepoints? >> Well nfs_mount.stp was just an example of how to pull the information >> from the kernel.. I just wanted to complete the loop... but as >> Christoph pointed out it probably shouldn't been included in the posting. >> >> I'm not sure moving the nfs_mount.stp script into kernel >> would make sense. One of the advantages of trace point and system >> scripts (depending on what is passed up) it allows users to define >> exactly what they need to see.. >> >> For example, a kernel guy might be interested in a particular bit in a flag >> field which would be meaningless to an IT guy. On the other hand, the IT guy >> would be interested in the error code. One trace point could supply all the >> information but different systemtap scripts would be need to show the >> desired information. >> >> My point being, if we move things down into the kernel, I think we would >> lose this type of flexibly... > > I suggest you provide an ftrace plugin, just like I'm doing with > blktrace, see: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/20/190 I agree its something I need to look into... steved. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
