From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>,
axboe@kernel.dk, mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
fweisbec@gmail.com, teravest@google.com, slavapestov@google.com,
ctalbott@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] block: block_bio_complete tracepoint was missing
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:33:27 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F0A51F7.9040206@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120109014949.GA16360@mtj.dyndns.org>
Hi,
2012-01-09 10:49 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 10:30:06AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Just adding the TP unconditionally will produce duplicated (in some
>> sense) reports about the completion. For example, normal request
>> based IO reports whole request completion prior to its bio's, and
>> further
>
> Request and bio completions are separate events. There's nothing
> wrong with reporting them separately. In fact, I think they should be
> reported separately.
>
>> , some of nested block IO handling routines - bounced bio and
>> btrfs with compression, etc - call bio_endio() more than once. Also
>> there are cases that bio fails before it's enqueued for some reason.
>
> They are actually separate bio's being completed. I don't think
> trying to put extra semantics on TP itself is a good idea. In
> general, TP signals that such event happened with sufficient
> information and it's the consumers' responsibility to make sense of
> what's going on. BIO_CLONED/BOUNCED are there.
I see.
>> I have no idea about the ioblame can deal with all of such corner
>> cases. However it might confuse blktrace somewhat, I guess.
>
> Unless someone is doing memcpy() on bio's, ioblame should be okay. It
> only considers bio's which went through actual submission.
>
>> I already posted similar patch a couple of weeks ago, but didn't
>> receive a comment yet. [1] Please take a look this too :)
>
> I'll reply there but don't think imposing such extra logic on TP is a
> good idea.
I'll reply on that thread too. :)
>> After a quick glance, the ioblame seems to carry all IO accounting
>> info through the first bio in the request. If so, why don't you use
>> the request structure for that?
>
> Because there are bio based drivers which don't use requests at all.
What I thought for such drivers was dynamic allocation in their
->make_request_fn, but because we don't have a block_bio_issue TP,
Nevermind. :)
Thanks,
Namhyung Kim
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-09 2:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-05 23:42 [RFC PATCHSET RESEND] ioblame: statistical IO analyzer Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 23:42 ` [PATCH 01/11] trace_event_filter: factorize filter creation Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 23:42 ` [PATCH 02/11] trace_event_filter: add trace_event_filter_*() interface Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 23:42 ` [PATCH 03/11] block: block_bio_complete tracepoint was missing Tejun Heo
2012-01-09 1:30 ` Namhyung Kim
2012-01-09 1:49 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-09 2:33 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2012-01-05 23:42 ` [PATCH 04/11] block: add @req to bio_{front|back}_merge tracepoints Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 23:42 ` [PATCH 05/11] block: abstract disk iteration into disk_iter Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 23:42 ` [PATCH 06/11] writeback: move struct wb_writeback_work to writeback.h Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 23:42 ` [PATCH 07/11] writeback: add more tracepoints Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 23:42 ` [PATCH 08/11] block: add block_touch_buffer tracepoint Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 23:42 ` [PATCH 09/11] vfs: add fcheck tracepoint Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 23:42 ` [PATCH 10/11] stacktrace: implement save_stack_trace_quick() Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 23:42 ` [PATCH 11/11] block, trace: implement ioblame IO statistical analyzer Tejun Heo
2012-01-06 9:00 ` [RFC PATCHSET RESEND] ioblame: statistical IO analyzer Namhyung Kim
2012-01-06 16:02 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-06 16:33 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F0A51F7.9040206@lge.com \
--to=namhyung.kim@lge.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=ctalbott@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=slavapestov@google.com \
--cc=teravest@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).