From: "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@intel.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"<devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
"Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Lustre Development List" <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>,
"Nunez, James A" <james.a.nunez@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] staging: lustre: Correct missing newline for CERROR call in sfw_handle_server_rpc
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 19:17:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <FA14ED53-EE7A-4DF4-9D98-1ABD9229BDCB@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1457808989.11972.22.camel@perches.com>
On Mar 12, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-03-12 at 18:32 +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2016-03-12 at 13:00 -0500, James Simmons wrote:
>>>> From: James Nunez <james.a.nunez@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> This is one of the fixes broken out of patch 10000 that was
>>>> missed in the merger. With this fix the CERROR called in
>>>> sfw_handle_server_rpc will print out correctly.
>>> Speaking of CERROR and logging, it it really useful
>>> for each CERROR use to have 2 static structs?
>>>
>>> In CERROR -> CDEBUG_LIMIT there is a:
>>> static struct cfs_debug_limit_state cdls;
>>> (12 or 16 bytes depending on 32/64 bit arch)
>>>
>>> and in CDEBUG_LIMIT -> _CDEBUG
>>> static struct libcfs_debug_msg_data msgdata;
>>> (24 or 36 bytes depending on 32/64 bit arch)
>>>
>>> That seems a largish bit of data and code to initialize
>>> these structs for over a thousand call sites.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't a single static suffice?
>> Single static would not work because the code is parallel so it'll
>> stomp over each other.
>
> Sure, but would that matter in practice?
Well. The bits about the callsite would certainly matter since
we need to know where the message is coming from.
Overwriting them in a racy way would make the messages unreliable.
> net_ratelimit() has similar parallelization and it doesn't
> seem to matter there.
That one seems to rate limit all prints together.
We are trying limit each individual one.
So if you have a bunch of print1 and a bunch of print2, but a few
of print3, you see the print3, but ratelimit the first two
and get something like this in the logs:
print1
print2
print3
print2 condensed: the message was repeated a gazillion times
print3
print1 condensed: the message was repeated two gazillion times.
>
>> or do you mean to have a common
>> structure for every callsite (but instantiated separately)?
>
> That might help a tiny bit.
>
> Some possibly unnecessary bits:
>
> o .msg_cdls
How are we going to rate-limit this stuff without remembering some
information between the calls?
> o __FILE__, __func__ and __LINE__ fields have marginal value
Probably not as important in the kernel indeed, but on the
other hand if the message has moved compared to the source developer has
then there is evidence some patches were applied and that could be asked
about.
> o .msg_subsys seems set only to DEBUG_SUBSYSTEM.
This is redefined in every source file:
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fid/fid_lib.c:#define DEBUG_SUBSYSTEM S_FID
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fid/fid_request.c:#define DEBUG_SUBSYSTEM S_FID
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fid/lproc_fid.c:#define DEBUG_SUBSYSTEM S_FID
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fld/fld_cache.c:#define DEBUG_SUBSYSTEM S_FLD
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fld/fld_request.c:#define DEBUG_SUBSYSTEM S_FLD
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fld/lproc_fld.c:#define DEBUG_SUBSYSTEM S_FLD
…
Allows you to filter out messages by subsystem in addition to by level.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-12 19:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-12 18:00 [PATCH 0/6] Last batch of lnet selftest cleanup James Simmons
2016-03-12 18:00 ` [PATCH 1/6] staging: lustre: Correct missing newline for CERROR call in sfw_handle_server_rpc James Simmons
2016-03-12 18:23 ` Joe Perches
2016-03-12 18:32 ` Drokin, Oleg
2016-03-12 18:56 ` Joe Perches
2016-03-12 19:17 ` Drokin, Oleg [this message]
2016-03-12 19:29 ` Joe Perches
2016-03-12 18:00 ` [PATCH 2/6] staging: lustre: add missing buffer overflow fix for console.c James Simmons
2016-03-12 18:00 ` [PATCH 3/6] staging: lustre: handle error returned from wait_event_timeout seltest timer James Simmons
2016-03-12 18:00 ` [PATCH 4/6] staging: lustre: remove excess blank lines in lnet selftest code James Simmons
2016-03-12 18:00 ` [PATCH 5/6] staging: lustre: realign some code in lnet selftest so its readable James Simmons
2016-03-12 18:00 ` [PATCH 6/6] staging: lustre: cleanup comment style for lnet selftest James Simmons
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=FA14ED53-EE7A-4DF4-9D98-1ABD9229BDCB@intel.com \
--to=oleg.drokin@intel.com \
--cc=andreas.dilger@intel.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=james.a.nunez@intel.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=jsimmons@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.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®