Re: [PATCH 0/3] tracing/ftrace: ftrace_bprintk

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:25:30PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:16:18AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > These three patches are part of a patchset posted by Lai Jiangshan in december 2008.
> > > They introduce a binary version of ftrace_printk() called ftrace_bprintk()
> > > 
> > > While having the same goal: print a generic message entry into the ring buffer,
> > > their approaches are very different.
> > > 
> > > - ftrace_printk() does the formatting job on tracing time, insert the whole resulting string
> > >   into the ring buffer, and then the string is printed on output time without a lot of modifications.
> > > 
> > > - ftrace_bprintk() does no formatting on tracing time. Instead, it looks at the format string
> > >   to find the types and the numbers of the arguments and directly stores them as-is into the
> > >   ring-buffer. Then the format string is stored into the ring-buffer too, but only by its address,
> > >   it is not copied. Then on output time only, the final string is formatted and sent to the user.
> > >   This gives a result about as fast as a traditional tracer with fixed fields types, except that
> > >   we can print random types and numbers of fields here.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The first patch adds the generic support for binary formatting.
> > > The second adds the support for binary print types on ftrace
> > > and the last introduces ftrace_bprintk() which supports safely the modules
> > > by listening on the module loading/unloading notifier to keep track of
> > > unwanted freed format strings.
> > > 
> > > Lai Jiangshan (3):
> > >       add binary printf
> > >       ftrace: infrastructure for supporting binary record
> > >       ftrace: add ftrace_bprintk()
> > > 
> > 
> > hi,
> > 
> > this seems like a really valuable feature....I'm just 
> > wondering about a couple of things....
> > 
> > If the 'brpintk tracer' in trace/trace_bprintk.c is just being 
> > used to set an enabled flag for printing out these binary 
> > records, then are we better off with just an option flag in 
> > the 'trace_options' file?
> > 
> > Second, can we somehow combine ftrace_printk() and 
> > ftrace_bprintk(), so that a developer can just use one 
> > interface? Perhaps, ftrace_printk calls ftrace_bprintk if 
> > binary option flag is set, otherwise, it just outputs things 
> > normally.
> 
> Well, ftrace_bprintk() seems to be a worthy and transparent 
> replacement for ftrace_printk() to me. I.e. lets just use this 
> as the new implementation for ftrace_printk().
> 
> Would there be any downsides of doing so? I dont see any.
> 
> 	Ingo


That's what I think too.
For now I posted Lai's patchset, but my purpose is to replace the old 
ftrace_printk by this new one. Once it is merged on -tip I'll start
iterating around to improve it and replace ftrace_printk.


> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/