From: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@canonical.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team <kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com>
Subject: Re: Using tracing_off() in __schedule_bug()
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:12:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40ec3ea41003121812j7cb349e4g1c455ae096da35cd@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1268436844.4471.783.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 10:32 -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
>> We're considering using tracing_off() in __schedule_bug() in the
>> Ubuntu kernel to help us solve "scheduling while atomic" bugs without
>> needing to compile and install a special kernel to do so. Using the
>> tracing_off() call enables us to generate smaller function traces when
>> debugging, and find the bug easier since it should be at the end of
>> any traces. The patch we are thinking of using can be found at [1].
>> You can find an overview of how bugs are solved using this approach
>> there as well.
>>
>> Are there any thoughts as to the appropriateness of this patch in
>> Ubuntu kernels? My guess is that this isn't done in the upstream
>> vanilla kernels because it would be annoying to have a stock kernel
>> littered with tracing_off() calls if you hit one when you weren't
>> meaning to. However, we're interested in hearing if there's some
>> negative consequence we haven't thought of.
>
> Actually, it has been on my TODO list to litter tracing_off() all over
> the kernel ;-)
>
> No, by all means, I would definitely take a patch that turn off tracing
> at critical areas. One of which I would like to do is with the BUG()
> call.
Sounds good to me. The only place I currently see tracing_off called
is in oops_enter.
> Hmm, thinking about it more, I would rather have a separate function,
> that would call tracing_off() if some variable is set. By default it
> would be set, but in case you want to keep tracing after a bug is hit,
> you can have a way to disable it.
>
> I need to write up a patch soon. Thanks for bring this up.
I'd be happy to help out in this endeavor if you'd like. I'm wondering
if there shouldn't be multiple levels of tracing_off support specified
at boot time (disabled on WARNING, BUG, __schedule_bug, OOPS) in an
ordered priority way. I.e. tracing_off_bug would leave tracing on for
WARNING's, but turn it off for BUG's, schedule bugs, and oopses. The
default would be tracing_off_warn, which would call tracing_off on all
of the above.
Your thoughts?
-- Chase
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-13 2:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-12 15:32 Chase Douglas
2010-03-12 23:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-03-13 2:12 ` Chase Douglas [this message]
2010-03-13 2:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-03-13 2:50 ` Chase Douglas
2010-03-13 3:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-03-13 3:15 ` Chase Douglas
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=40ec3ea41003121812j7cb349e4g1c455ae096da35cd@mail.gmail.com \
--to=chase.douglas@canonical.com \
--cc=kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®