On 9/26/2018 2:10 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel
On 9/26/2018 2:10 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan
>> wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan
>> wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan
> wrote:
>> On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan
> wrote:
>> On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
> On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>>
>> On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
>>> wrote:
+
+ trace_seq_init(>seq);
+
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
> On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>>
>> On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
>>> wrote:
+
+ trace_seq_init(>seq);
+
On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
+
+ trace_seq_init(>seq);
+ iter->ent = fbuffer->entry;
+ event_call->event.funcs->trace(iter, 0, event);
+
On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
+
+ trace_seq_init(>seq);
+ iter->ent = fbuffer->entry;
+ event_call->event.funcs->trace(iter, 0, event);
+
On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
Also I think this spinlock can be moved further down.
OK. Something like this would suffice?
{{{
spin_lock_irqsave(>buf_lock, flags);
On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
Also I think this spinlock can be moved further down.
OK. Something like this would suffice?
{{{
spin_lock_irqsave(>buf_lock, flags);
On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
Could you just split the pstore space into a per-cpu event buffer like
we are doing for ftrace-on-pstore? Then you don't need to lock. I fear
On 9/22/2018 10:07 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
Could you just split the pstore space into a per-cpu event buffer like
we are doing for ftrace-on-pstore? Then you don't need to lock. I fear
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
Could you just split the pstore space into a per-cpu event buffer like
we are doing for ftrace-on-pstore? Then you don't need to lock. I fear
the lock contention will be apparent. The pstore
On 9/22/2018 2:35 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
Could you just split the pstore space into a per-cpu event buffer like
we are doing for ftrace-on-pstore? Then you don't need to lock. I fear
the lock contention will be apparent. The pstore
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
>
> Currently pstore has function trace support which can be
> used to get the function call chain with limited data.
> Event tracing has extra data which is useful to debug wide
> variety of issues and is heavily used across the kernel.
>
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 4:28 PM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
>
> Currently pstore has function trace support which can be
> used to get the function call chain with limited data.
> Event tracing has extra data which is useful to debug wide
> variety of issues and is heavily used across the kernel.
>
On 9/19/2018 2:43 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/19/2018 2:14 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:22:48 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/18/2018 5:04 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
It looks like pstore_event_call() gets called from a trace event. You
can't call kmalloc()
On 9/19/2018 2:43 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/19/2018 2:14 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:22:48 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/18/2018 5:04 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
It looks like pstore_event_call() gets called from a trace event. You
can't call kmalloc()
On 9/19/2018 2:14 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:22:48 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/18/2018 5:04 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
It looks like pstore_event_call() gets called from a trace event. You
can't call kmalloc() from one. One thing is that kmalloc has
tracepoints
On 9/19/2018 2:14 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:22:48 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
On 9/18/2018 5:04 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
It looks like pstore_event_call() gets called from a trace event. You
can't call kmalloc() from one. One thing is that kmalloc has
tracepoints
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:22:48 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> On 9/18/2018 5:04 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > It looks like pstore_event_call() gets called from a trace event. You
> > can't call kmalloc() from one. One thing is that kmalloc has
> > tracepoints itself. You trace those you
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:22:48 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> On 9/18/2018 5:04 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > It looks like pstore_event_call() gets called from a trace event. You
> > can't call kmalloc() from one. One thing is that kmalloc has
> > tracepoints itself. You trace those you
On 9/18/2018 5:04 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
It looks like pstore_event_call() gets called from a trace event. You
can't call kmalloc() from one. One thing is that kmalloc has
tracepoints itself. You trace those you just entered an infinite loop.
Ok will remove it in v2. But any alternative
On 9/18/2018 5:04 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
It looks like pstore_event_call() gets called from a trace event. You
can't call kmalloc() from one. One thing is that kmalloc has
tracepoints itself. You trace those you just entered an infinite loop.
Ok will remove it in v2. But any alternative
On 9/18/2018 4:34 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:37:52 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Hi,
Anyone here?
You also just caught me from coming back from a trip. I'm looking at
your patches now.
-- Steve
Thanks Steve, I just thought you guys might have missed the patch.
On 9/18/2018 4:34 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:37:52 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Hi,
Anyone here?
You also just caught me from coming back from a trip. I'm looking at
your patches now.
-- Steve
Thanks Steve, I just thought you guys might have missed the patch.
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 01:57:03 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan
> ---
> fs/pstore/Kconfig | 2 +-
> fs/pstore/ftrace.c | 55 ++
> fs/pstore/inode.c | 4 +++
> fs/pstore/ram.c| 44
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 01:57:03 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan
> ---
> fs/pstore/Kconfig | 2 +-
> fs/pstore/ftrace.c | 55 ++
> fs/pstore/inode.c | 4 +++
> fs/pstore/ram.c| 44
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:37:52 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anyone here?
You also just caught me from coming back from a trip. I'm looking at
your patches now.
-- Steve
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:37:52 +0530
Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anyone here?
You also just caught me from coming back from a trip. I'm looking at
your patches now.
-- Steve
On 9/17/2018 11:08 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2018-09-11 03:46:01)
On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
+void notrace pstore_event_call(struct trace_event_buffer *fbuffer)
+{
+ struct trace_iterator *iter;
+ struct trace_seq *s;
+ struct
On 9/17/2018 11:08 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2018-09-11 03:46:01)
On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
+void notrace pstore_event_call(struct trace_event_buffer *fbuffer)
+{
+ struct trace_iterator *iter;
+ struct trace_seq *s;
+ struct
Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2018-09-11 03:46:01)
> On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > +void notrace pstore_event_call(struct trace_event_buffer *fbuffer)
> > +{
> > + struct trace_iterator *iter;
> > + struct trace_seq *s;
> > + struct trace_event_call *event_call;
> >
Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2018-09-11 03:46:01)
> On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > +void notrace pstore_event_call(struct trace_event_buffer *fbuffer)
> > +{
> > + struct trace_iterator *iter;
> > + struct trace_seq *s;
> > + struct trace_event_call *event_call;
> >
On 9/17/2018 8:24 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 12:08 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Currently pstore has function trace support which can be
used to get the function call chain
On 9/17/2018 8:24 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 12:08 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
wrote:
On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Currently pstore has function trace support which can be
used to get the function call chain
On 9/16/2018 7:25 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
Sorry for the top post. I've been wanting to do this as well for some
time. It's quite useful. I am out of office this week and away from work
machine. I will take a look at your patches next week once I'm back at
work. Thanks.
Best,
J
Cool,
On 9/16/2018 7:25 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
Sorry for the top post. I've been wanting to do this as well for some
time. It's quite useful. I am out of office this week and away from work
machine. I will take a look at your patches next week once I'm back at
work. Thanks.
Best,
J
Cool,
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 12:08 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> > Currently pstore has function trace support which can be
>> > used to get the function call chain with limited data.
>> >
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 12:08 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> > Currently pstore has function trace support which can be
>> > used to get the function call chain with limited data.
>> >
On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Currently pstore has function trace support which can be
used to get the function call chain with limited data.
Event tracing has extra data which is useful to debug wide
variety of issues and is heavily used across the kernel.
Adding this support
On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Currently pstore has function trace support which can be
used to get the function call chain with limited data.
Event tracing has extra data which is useful to debug wide
variety of issues and is heavily used across the kernel.
Adding this support
On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
+void notrace pstore_event_call(struct trace_event_buffer *fbuffer)
+{
+ struct trace_iterator *iter;
+ struct trace_seq *s;
+ struct trace_event_call *event_call;
+ struct pstore_record record;
+ struct trace_event
On 9/9/2018 1:57 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
+void notrace pstore_event_call(struct trace_event_buffer *fbuffer)
+{
+ struct trace_iterator *iter;
+ struct trace_seq *s;
+ struct trace_event_call *event_call;
+ struct pstore_record record;
+ struct trace_event
Currently pstore has function trace support which can be
used to get the function call chain with limited data.
Event tracing has extra data which is useful to debug wide
variety of issues and is heavily used across the kernel.
Adding this support to pstore can be very helpful to debug
different
Currently pstore has function trace support which can be
used to get the function call chain with limited data.
Event tracing has extra data which is useful to debug wide
variety of issues and is heavily used across the kernel.
Adding this support to pstore can be very helpful to debug
different
48 matches
Mail list logo
