From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932133AbZKXHPI (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:15:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752553AbZKXHPH (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:15:07 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com ([209.85.220.213]:47381 "EHLO mail-fx0-f213.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752248AbZKXHPG (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:15:06 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=JjktOVuFlir21W2PMwmoFhF77aViAnslxALAPNauXz7e53DkdIH2KUVaf384W9Hc4c 5Vv7CNAyigjI4Y6MM9WRpl4kHCiSDOa5S3jpPXdNzfp87W5BmBBIVdva8l+aQyNYTQEi 4JLLD4rDVlPH6Ed/5YQy/5tMx599kFsFVPIcA= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4B0B6E44.6090106@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <4B0B6E44.6090106@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:15:10 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: cd19c3d7f7ca7b83 Message-ID: <84144f020911232315h7c8b7348u9ad97f585f54a014@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] perf kmem: Add more functions and show more statistics From: Pekka Enberg To: Li Zefan Cc: Ingo Molnar , Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , LKML , "linux-mm@kvack.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Li, On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Li Zefan wrote: > Pekka, do you think we can remove kmemtrace now? One more use case I forgot to mention: boot time tracing. Much of the persistent kernel memory footprint comes from the boot process which is why it's important to be able to trace memory allocations immediately after kmem_cache_init() has run. Can we make "perf kmem" do that? Eduard put most of his efforts into making that work for kmemtrace. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Li Zefan wrote: > With kmem trace events, low-level analyzing can be done using > ftrace, and high-level analyzing can be done using perf-kmem. > > And chance is, more people may use and improve perf-kmem, and it > will be well-maintained within the perf infrastructure. On the > other hand, I guess few people use and contribute to kmemtrace-user. Sure, I think "perf kmem" is the way forward. I'd love to hear Eduard's comments on this before we remove the code from kernel. Do we need to do that for 2.6.33 or can we postpone that for 2.6.34? Pekka From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 134EB6B007B for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:15:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so6687865fxm.10 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:15:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4B0B6E44.6090106@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <4B0B6E44.6090106@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:15:10 +0200 Message-ID: <84144f020911232315h7c8b7348u9ad97f585f54a014@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] perf kmem: Add more functions and show more statistics From: Pekka Enberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Li Zefan Cc: Ingo Molnar , Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , LKML , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: Hi Li, On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Li Zefan wrote: > Pekka, do you think we can remove kmemtrace now? One more use case I forgot to mention: boot time tracing. Much of the persistent kernel memory footprint comes from the boot process which is why it's important to be able to trace memory allocations immediately after kmem_cache_init() has run. Can we make "perf kmem" do that? Eduard put most of his efforts into making that work for kmemtrace. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Li Zefan wrote: > With kmem trace events, low-level analyzing can be done using > ftrace, and high-level analyzing can be done using perf-kmem. > > And chance is, more people may use and improve perf-kmem, and it > will be well-maintained within the perf infrastructure. On the > other hand, I guess few people use and contribute to kmemtrace-user. Sure, I think "perf kmem" is the way forward. I'd love to hear Eduard's comments on this before we remove the code from kernel. Do we need to do that for 2.6.33 or can we postpone that for 2.6.34? Pekka -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org