Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230915154856.1896062-1-lb@semihalf.com> <CAJfuBxyFYyGCtr5i=P7N=1oX3J=jmdp1VLGLt+z1fAnuvGK2aA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8ByeJBrPEQSgUc91LQO9Krzjh2pauhMTjEC82M8ozayE76Yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJfuBxxmL-GtBgt=033F9UNeLCreFbJh3HrQQN2nYKwR_0uTbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231003155810.6df9de16@gandalf.local.home> <CAJfuBxyJyFbFEhRxrtxJ_RazaTODV6Gg64b1aiNEzt6_iE4=Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8ByeLNc9UbTNG4x=40AxYqjjRCsvBNtNFai0PMveM2X4XCow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJfuBxyRF4q_T8LmHwR=-PKKDDpiFg2nO03uLnL8aGpRyBByKw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK8ByeLpkSV6o6gPw8eJVqq5+ynQrSDjemY7mXkO1ZmA0rYKfQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8ByeLpkSV6o6gPw8eJVqq5+ynQrSDjemY7mXkO1ZmA0rYKfQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   jim.cromie@gmail.com
Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2023 10:01:49 -0600
Message-ID: <CAJfuBxw+ANLwssAGWpkn5PeJb8ZKn4LXQkk2Gfv3aGsSN=S55Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] dynamic_debug: add support for logs destination
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=81ukasz_Bartosik?= <lb@semihalf.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>,
        Yaniv Tzoreff <yanivt@google.com>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        upstream@semihalf.com,
        Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 4:47=E2=80=AFPM =C5=81ukasz Bartosik <lb@semihalf.co=
m> wrote:
>
> pt., 6 pa=C5=BA 2023 o 22:49 <jim.cromie@gmail.com> napisa=C5=82(a):
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 4:55=E2=80=AFAM =C5=81ukasz Bartosik <lb@semihal=
f.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > wt., 3 pa=C5=BA 2023 o 22:54 <jim.cromie@gmail.com> napisa=C5=82(a):
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 1:57=E2=80=AFPM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@good=
mis.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 14:49:20 -0600
> > > > > jim.cromie@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > hi Lukasz,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sorry my kernel-time has been in my own trees.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I dont understand is why +T is insufficient.
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > We would like to be able to separate debug logs from different
> > > subsystem (e.g. thunderbolt and usbcore).
> > > With +T it is not possible because all debug logs will land in the sa=
me bucket.
> > >
> > > > > > IIUC, tracefs is intended for production use.
> > > > > > thats why each event can be enabled / disabled
> > > > > > - to select and minimize whats traced, and not impact the syste=
m
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and +T  can forward all pr_debugs to trace,
> > > > > > (by 1-few trace events defined similarly to others)
> > > > > > or very few, giving yet another selection mechanism
> > > > > > to choose or eliminate specific pr-debugs and reduce traffic to
> > > > > > interesting stuff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once your debug is in the trace-buf,
> > > > > > shouldnt user-space be deciding what to do with it ?
> > > > > > a smart daemon could leverage tracefs to good effect.
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, a daemon could separate the debug logs but IMHO it is much
> > > easier to separate logs by sending them directly from a given subsyst=
em
> > > to a separate trace instance. My proposal allows to configure differe=
nt
> > > trace instance as destination for each callsite.
> > >
> > > > > > IMO the main value of +T is that it allows feeding existing pr_=
debugs
> > > > > > into the place where other trace-data is already integrated and=
 managed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At this point, I dont see any extra destination handling as pru=
dent.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm fine with either approach. I kind of like the creation of the=
 instance,
> > > > > as that allows the user to keep this debug separate from other tr=
acing
> > > > > going on. We are starting to have multiple applications using the=
 tracing
> > > > > buffer (although most are using instances, which is why I'm tryin=
g to make
> > > > > them lighter weight with the eventfs code).
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Steve
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Steve, thanks for commenting from the trace perspective.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok Im starting to grasp that multiple instances are good
> > > > (and wondering how I didnt notice)
> > > >
> > > > What doesnt thrill me is the new _ddebug field, it enlarges the foo=
tprint.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes it increases _ddebug structure by a pointer size.
> > >
> > > > can you make it go away ?
> > >
> > > I implemented my proposal with flexibility in mind so that if someone
> > > would like to add
> > > another destination in the future it should be easy to do. I
> > > understand that adding a pointer
> > > to the _ddebug structure increases footprint size that's why I also
> > > added CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG_DST
> > > kernel configuration option in order to enable/disable this functiona=
lity.
> > >
> > > > I have some thoughts ..
> > >
> > > Please share your thoughts. I'm sure we can come to an agreement how
> > > to incorporate both +T and my proposal.
> >
> >
> > So heres what Im thinking:
> >
> > shrink lineno, get 2-3 bits back.
> > last I checked largest C file is <32kloc
> > largest header is ~120kloc, but its a data only,
> > no pr_debugs will suddenly appear there.
> >
> > define a dst_id field with 3 bits
>
> The dst_id field would be taken into account only when a callsite has
> T flag set, is that your assumption ?

Im ambivalent about the +T bit itself,
it could as easily be another "special" value in the 0-2^N range of dst_id

its a use-case tradeoff:
+T  goes to main tracebuf.
dst_id>0  goes to separate, pre-registered "flight-recorder"  tracebufs

I'm not sure whether doing both independently is better than having
2^(n-1)-1 extra bufs.

Actually, demoting +T to just another dest makes sense -
theres a large population of pr-debugs, and events like vblank-*
Nobody will send vblank to syslog on purpose either.


either way, dyndbg will need both:
new trace-events, so that prdbgs can get enabled as a single/few event-type=
s
trace_array_buf writes to flight recorders


> Can one bit be taken from class_id to increase dst_id to 4 bits ?
> Decreasing class_id length to 5 bits would still leave its range at
> [0..31]

31 classes / categories should be enough.
64 was convenient, BIT* supported.

> > 0 is for main tracebuf
> > 1-7 is for other instances
> >
>
> Do you want to leave trace events as originally implemented with +T flag =
?
> If yes then I would like to propose:
> dst_id =3D 0 - for trace events for pr_debug and dbg_dev logs (default)
> dst_id =3D 1 - for default trace instance
> dst_id > 1 - other trace instances
>
> > then the alt-dest lookup is avoided except when the dst_id field is >0
> >
> > It might work to put the alt-dst-pointer into the classmaps,
> > so the destination is used for the entire group of debugs
> > forex DRM_UT_CORE etc.
> >
>
> If we store dst pointers for dst_id > 1 in classmaps then is there a fast=
 way
> to get from callsite (_ddebug) to its corresponding classmap
> (ddebug_class_map) in order to
> lookup trace instance destination ?  I ask because I don't see it being p=
ossible
> without adding a new field to the _ddebug structure.

I agree, theres no good enough way, compared to a small dst-id.
The "muse" was on the grouping aspect it might bring.

> > But its no better than the dst_id field, which is per-callsite,
> > and entirely independent of classes.
> >
this was me agreeing with your point above :-)


>
> I don't have a real life use case to configure different trace
> instance for each callsite.
> I just tried to be as much flexible as possible.
>

Ive come around to agree - I looked back at some old threads
(that I was a part of, and barely remembered :-}

At least Sean Paul, Lyude, Simon Ser, Pekka Paalanen
have expressed a desire for a "flight-recorder"
it'd be hard to say now that 2-3 such buffers would always be enough,
esp as theres a performance reason for having your own.


> Thanks,
> Lukasz
>
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Lukasz