On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 10:50 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/trace/events/sunrpc.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c | 6 ++++--
> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/trace/events/sunrpc.h b/include/trace/events/sunrpc.h
> index 3995c58a1c51..a66aa1f59ed8 100644
> --- a/include/trace/events/sunrpc.h
> +++ b/include/trace/events/sunrpc.h
> @@ -1266,6 +1266,26 @@ TRACE_EVENT(xprt_reserve,
> )
> );
>
> +TRACE_EVENT(xs_data_ready,
> + TP_PROTO(
> + const struct rpc_xprt *xprt
> + ),
> +
> + TP_ARGS(xprt),
> +
> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> + __string(addr, xprt->address_strings[RPC_DISPLAY_ADDR])
> + __string(port, xprt->address_strings[RPC_DISPLAY_PORT])
> + ),
> +
> + TP_fast_assign(
> + __assign_str(addr, xprt->address_strings[RPC_DISPLAY_ADDR]);
> + __assign_str(port, xprt->address_strings[RPC_DISPLAY_PORT]);
> + ),
>
>
This tracepoint is likely to fire rather often when it's enabled. Would
it be more efficient to store the addr and port as binary data instead?
> +
> + TP_printk("peer=[%s]:%s", __get_str(addr), __get_str(port))
> +);
> +
> TRACE_EVENT(xs_stream_read_data,
> TP_PROTO(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, ssize_t err, size_t total),
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> index 650102a9c86a..73fab802996d 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> @@ -1378,7 +1378,7 @@ static void xs_udp_data_receive_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
> }
>
> /**
> - * xs_data_ready - "data ready" callback for UDP sockets
> + * xs_data_ready - "data ready" callback for sockets
> * @sk: socket with data to read
> *
> */
> @@ -1386,11 +1386,13 @@ static void xs_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
> {
> struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
>
> - dprintk("RPC: xs_data_ready...\n");
> xprt = xprt_from_sock(sk);
> if (xprt != NULL) {
> struct sock_xprt *transport = container_of(xprt,
> struct sock_xprt, xprt);
> +
> + trace_xs_data_ready(xprt);
> +
> transport->old_data_ready(sk);
> /* Any data means we had a useful conversation, so
> * then we don't need to delay the next reconnect
>
>
That dprintk was pretty worthless anyway. So the change seems fine to
me.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
