* blktrace -k
@ 2009-09-16 11:54 M. Mohan Kumar
2009-09-16 11:57 ` Alan D. Brunelle
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: M. Mohan Kumar @ 2009-09-16 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrace
Hi,
I observed that when we issue the command blktrace -d /dev/sda -k, which
stops on going trace. But the process which initiated tracing still runs. Is
it the expected behavior? Should not the process also be killed when blktrace
-k option is used?
Regards,
M. Mohan Kumar.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: blktrace -k
2009-09-16 11:54 blktrace -k M. Mohan Kumar
@ 2009-09-16 11:57 ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-09-16 14:35 ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-09-16 14:36 ` M. Mohan Kumar
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alan D. Brunelle @ 2009-09-16 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrace
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 17:12 +0530, M. Mohan Kumar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I observed that when we issue the command blktrace -d /dev/sda -k, which
> stops on going trace. But the process which initiated tracing still runs. Is
> it the expected behavior? Should not the process also be killed when blktrace
> -k option is used?
>
> Regards,
> M. Mohan Kumar.
No, the -k option just cleans up the kernel state (typically from a
previously aborted blktrace run that failed to clean up the state). It
doesn't do anything with user-level processes running blktrace.
Alan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: blktrace -k
2009-09-16 11:54 blktrace -k M. Mohan Kumar
2009-09-16 11:57 ` Alan D. Brunelle
@ 2009-09-16 14:35 ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-09-16 14:36 ` M. Mohan Kumar
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alan D. Brunelle @ 2009-09-16 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrace
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 19:54 +0530, M. Mohan Kumar wrote:
> >
> > No, the -k option just cleans up the kernel state (typically from a
> > previously aborted blktrace run that failed to clean up the state). It
> > doesn't do anything with user-level processes running blktrace.
> >
>
> Does it mean that one has to explicitly kill the existing blktrace process by
> Ctrl+C or kill?
>
> Regards,
> M. Mohan Kumar
Yes - the point of '-k' is to clean up after some blktrace process has
failed unexpectedly and left the kernel in an unclean state. [Although I
think that the kernel has been cleaned up enough in this area where it
may not be necessary anymore...]
Alan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: blktrace -k
2009-09-16 11:54 blktrace -k M. Mohan Kumar
2009-09-16 11:57 ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-09-16 14:35 ` Alan D. Brunelle
@ 2009-09-16 14:36 ` M. Mohan Kumar
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: M. Mohan Kumar @ 2009-09-16 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrace
>
> No, the -k option just cleans up the kernel state (typically from a
> previously aborted blktrace run that failed to clean up the state). It
> doesn't do anything with user-level processes running blktrace.
>
Does it mean that one has to explicitly kill the existing blktrace process by
Ctrl+C or kill?
Regards,
M. Mohan Kumar
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-09-16 14:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-09-16 11:54 blktrace -k M. Mohan Kumar
2009-09-16 11:57 ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-09-16 14:35 ` Alan D. Brunelle
2009-09-16 14:36 ` M. Mohan Kumar
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.