Mainline Android logger project

Revision as of 17:49, 24 May 2011 by Tim Bird (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for managing information related to the "Mainline Android Logger" project of the CE Workgroup.

The proposals for this project are at:

Android logger issues

This section describes some attributes of the Android logger code, which are relevant for mainlining the code into Linux. Let's use a modified SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis for strategic planning to mainline this code.

To find the logger's strengths and weaknesses, lets research and provide information and hard numbers for how it compares with existing logging alternatives.

Competition (Threats)

What are the alternatives to the Android logger?

  • logbuf (the kernel log buffer)
  • syslog

What are the pros and cons of each system (see feature matrix below)


How much overhead does each logging system have?

How long does it take to write 1 million messages, for each of the above systems?

How many context switches are required to log a single message?

How long is each message, on average?

How many data copies are performed for each message?

What is the average time to write each message, from the caller's perspective?


What are the space requirements for each logging system?

what is the code footprint in the kernel?

What is the data footprint in the kernel?

What is the code footprint in user-space?

What is the data footprint in user-space?

Are any other modules are required solely to support logging?

What is the size required in persistent storage?

Can the size be limited (at compile-time?, at boot-time?, at run-time?)

Can the size be adjusted (at boot-time?, at run-time?)

Given default sizes, and expected logging rates, how much time does each system record?


How much does each system need to be maintained?

How many changes have been made to the each system in the last 3 years?

Are any significant changes expected in the future?


What things can be configured at compile-time and run-time for each system?


What features does each of the log systems have?

[Create a feature matrix here]

Attribute logger logbuf syslog Notes
multiple channels yes no no? allows for separation of data to prevent overrun
can limit space used yes yes ?
cost to write 1M messages ? ? ? need to benchmark
average cost to write a message ? ? ? need to measure
average message size ? ? ? need to measure
RAM required for complete logger system ? ? ? need to measure (should include code space)
amount of flash or disk required for complete logger system ? ? ? need to measure (should include code space)
user daemon required? no no yes syslog requires syslogd
networking required no no no* syslog requires network for some remote features
number of context switches per message ? ? ? need to measure
logs both kernel and user messages? no no yes? klogd puts logbuf messages into syslog?
ability to store messages persistently on target no no* yes klogd puts logbuf messages into syslog?
ability to store messages persistently on host yes* no yes
  • adb logcat is builtin command for android
  • you can use 'remote shell:dmesg >log.txt' on most embedded systems, but it's not really a design principle of logbuf
  • syslog is built with remote message access integrated into the system
integrated into existing debug tools yes no? no? I don't know of anything but target-side tools (dmesg, cat /var/log) that "know" about logbuf and syslog
ability to filter messages by tag yes no ? does syslog require tagging, is grep used for syslog tagging?
ease of use high low medium
  • Android has facilities for logging available throughout the system (CLI, C/C++, Java), as well as good tool integration for readout and filtering
  • klogd has 'echo >/dev/kmsg', but nothing else integrated into user-space stack
  • syslog has logger, and libc calls (openlog, syslog, closelog)
tool support toolbox, adb busybox, standalone dmesg, klogd busybox, standalone logger, syslogd

Extension questions

Here are some questions about how the systems could be integrated:

  • What features *could* each log system have, if extended?
  • Would extension to an existing system interfere with it's current primary purpose?
  • For each change contemplated, can it be implemented to minimize the impact to existing code?

Barriers to entry as is (Weaknesses)

Does logger duplicate functionality that exists elsewhere? Does it make sense to extend an existing system, rather than implement a new system?

What are barriers to entry:

  • use of ioctl?
  • hardcoded number of log channels
  • other style issues?
  • longterm maintainer?

Attractive features of logger as is (Strengths)

What are the differentiating features of logger, compared to alternatives?

  • minimal context switches for logging
  • use of ring buffer automatically limits log size
  • log is in memory (no cost to store unused log messages)
  • all messages are tagged
  • all messages have priority
  • all messages have timestamp
  • user-space program to filter messages by tag
  • channel selection by user-space policy


This section has notes about discussions with the community kernel developers and with Google engineers, with regards to mainlining this code

Google engineer requests

  • Google doesn't want to change their class libraries or debug system
    • These have already shipped to developers and are integrated into other tools (eclipse log viewer)
    • the Android system and over 200,000 applications already use the existing classes
    • (So, can changes be made "under the hood" without changing the existing user interface?)
  • Google requests that any changes submitted to mainline also be placed in their kernel

repository (or Gerrit review queue), so they can see them when they do merges and are not caught off guard.

    • I'm not sure the detailed steps required to perform this

Project task list

  • Get needed hardware
  • Make sure contractors have all required source code:
    • AOSP, Android kernels, and logger code
  • Identify and review code before submission
    • identify possible mainline objections to code, and plan how to respond
    • compare with alternatives
      • compare and contrast logger code with kernel log buffer (e.g. dmesg vs. logcat)
        • performance, features, size,
      • compare and contrast logger code with syslog (syslogd, /var/log)
  • Submit code to LKML
  • Respond to feedback received
  • Add logger code to busybox?
    • Should this be done first?
    • log
    • logwrapper
    • logsync
    • What about logd_write.c code
      • included in bionic - should be included in busybox directly, because it's missing in glibc?
  • what about udev?
    • should mainline Linux automatically create logger devices nodes?
    • they are created by 'init' in Android systems