Re: [PATCH 2/6] pstore: Add event tracing support

[Joel Fernandes]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Sai Prakash Ranjan
>> <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
>>>>> <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       trace_seq_init(&iter->seq);
>>>>>> +       iter->ent = fbuffer->entry;
>>>>>> +       event_call->event.funcs->trace(iter, 0, event);
>>>>>> +       trace_seq_putc(&iter->seq, 0);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it be possible to store the binary trace record in the pstore
>>>>> buffer instead of outputting text? I suspect that will both be faster
>>>>> and less space.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will try this and come back.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Joel,
>>>
>>> I removed trace_seq_putc and there is some improvement seen: 203 MB/s
>>>
>>> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null status=progress
>>> 12207371264 bytes (12 GB, 11 GiB) copied, 60 s, 203 MB/s^C
>>> 24171926+0 records in
>>> 24171926+0 records out
>>> 12376026112 bytes (12 GB, 12 GiB) copied, 60.8282 s, 203 MB/s
>>>
>>> This seems good when compared to 190 MB/s seen previously.
>>> If this is Ok, then I will spin v2 with changes suggested.
>>
>> Sorry for slow reply, yes that sounds good and a worthwhile perf improvement.
>>
>
> Well so I think you should still not use spinlock to synchronize and
> split the buffer. You could expand pstore_record to have a ts field or
> introduce a new API like ->write_percpu instead of write, or
> something. But I strongly feel you should lock. For ftrace function

Aargh, I meant you should *not* lock :-)