![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
William Lee Irwin III wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > >>>Do a full pagetable walk, with all the associated locking from within >>>a systemtap script? I'd be surprised. Maybe if it's mostly hand-coded >>>in C, perhaps. Then you just end up with the same thing, don't you? > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 01:40:08PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>And my problem isn't with the hardcoded pagetable walker. Yeah, we'd >>probably still keep the pagetable callback walker thingy with Matt's >>associated cleanups (and my subsequent ones to clean it up more and >>move it to mm/): there are other in-kernel users for that anyway. >>The point is the proc API, and exposing random little parts of deep >>kernel internals that some people happen to find useful at the time. >>(which is why we have an incredible proliferation of these things). >>With systemtap scripts, you could walk pagetables and print *the exact >>page information you want*, or you could walk pfns, or LRU, or page_tree, >>or walk the page tree then the rmap structures. And you can selectively >>cull out items you don't care about if you only care about a subset of >>items, based on arbitrary criteria. And you can most likely do all that >>more efficiently than with a conglomeration of various /proc files >>(assuming they even provide what you want in the first place). > > > The EM guys are unwilling or unable for support-oriented reasons to > deal with anything but unmodified kernels as shipped by distros. And I think major distros ship with kprobes enabled, so that is yet another reason why systemtap should be considered before adding these proc interfaces. Thanks, Nick -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-04-13 09:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||