From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751867Ab2ALBFo (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:05:44 -0500 Received: from LGEMRELSE1Q.lge.com ([156.147.1.111]:50183 "EHLO LGEMRELSE1Q.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751734Ab2ALBFn (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:05:43 -0500 X-AuditID: 9c93016f-b7c72ae000007401-8d-4f0e31d9e088 Message-ID: <4F0E31D9.3080306@lge.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:05:29 +0900 From: Namhyung Kim User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: Namhyung Kim , axboe@kernel.dk, mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, teravest@google.com, slavapestov@google.com, ctalbott@google.com, dhsharp@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, winget@google.com, Chanho Park Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 9/9] block, trace: implement ioblame - IO tracer with origin tracking References: <1326220106-5765-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1326220106-5765-10-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20120111013212.GA6843@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <4F0D291A.8030205@lge.com> <20120111170635.GE26832@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20120111170635.GE26832@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, 2012-01-12 2:06 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 03:15:54PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: >> How about adding another tracepoint for intent creation to provide >> raw data as well, somewhere in iob_get_intent() or >> iob_intent_create() maybe? It can be useful to get those data for >> further processing IMHO. > > While I don't particularly object to that, information and > notification (via inotify) for that is already available via > ioblame/intents file which we need regardless of the new tracepoint, > so it's kinda redundant, isn't it? > > Thanks. > Yes. But that's a text-based so it might fit better to simple use cases. If we need further post processing based on intents, it could be better off having binary interface IMHO. And since we already use tracepoints anyway, wouldn't it be good to avoid adding another layer of interface or complexity? Thanks, Namhyung Kim