Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] nvme: add tracepoint for nvme_setup_cmd

Christoph Hellwig
2018-01-22T15:23:04Z

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 03:18:18PM +0100, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
> Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>

This could really use a changelog explaining what you're tracing,
and most importantly why.

> +struct rw_cmd {
> + __le64 slba;
> + __le16 length;
> + __le16 control;
> + __le32 dsmgmt;
> + __le32 reftag;
> + __le16 apptag;
> + __le16 appmask;
> +};
> +
> +struct dsm_cmd {
> + __le32 nr;
> + __le32 attributes;
> + __u32 rsvd12[4];
> +};

Why do we need all these different defintions? Just use
cdw2/3/10/11/12/13 for the fields and decode those __le32 on
a per-command basis where needed.

> +const char *nvme_trace_parse_cmd(struct trace_seq *p, bool admin,
> + u8 opcode, __le32 *cdw10)
> +{
> + if (admin) {
> + switch (opcode) {
> + case nvme_admin_create_sq:
> + return nvme_trace_create_sq(p, cdw10);
> + case nvme_admin_create_cq:
> + return nvme_trace_create_cq(p, cdw10);
> + case nvme_admin_identify:
> + return nvme_trace_admin_identify(p, cdw10);
> + default:
> + return nvme_trace_common(p, cdw10);
> + }
> + } else {
> + switch (opcode) {
> + case nvme_cmd_read:
> + case nvme_cmd_write:
> + case nvme_cmd_write_zeroes:
> + return nvme_trace_read_write(p, cdw10);
> + case nvme_cmd_dsm:
> + return nvme_trace_dsm(p, cdw10);
> + default:
> + return nvme_trace_common(p, cdw10);
> + }
> + }
> +}

Wouldn't it be easier to have separate tracepoints for admin vs
I/O commands? Especially as people might often want to trace
only one or the other.