lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tracing/kmemtrace: normalize the raw tracer event to the unified tracing API
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 04:37:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 09:16:00AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Frederic,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 23:09 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > Pekka, note that I would be pleased to add statistical tracing on
> > > > > this tracer, but I would need a hashtable, or an array, or a list, or whatever
> > > > > iterable to insert the data into the stat tracing api.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I don't know your projects about this... whether you wanted to use a section
> > > > > or something else...
> > > >
> > > > It really depends on what we're tracing. If we're interested in just the
> > > > allocation hotspots, a section will do just fine. However, if we're
> > > > tracing memory footprint, we need to take into store the object pointer
> > > > returned from kmalloc() and kmem_cache_alloc() so we can update
> > > > call-site statistics properly upon kfree().
> > > >
> > > > So I suppose we need both, a section for per call-site statistics and a
> > > > hash table for the object -> call-site mapping.
> > >
> > > 1)
> > >
> > > i think the call_site based tracking should be a built-in capability - the
> > > branch tracer needs that too for example. That would also make it very
> > > simple on the usage place: you wouldnt have to worry about sections in
> > > slub.c/etc.
> >
> >
> > I think that too. Can we use sections here? The traced functions are not
> > directly kmalloc/kmem_cache_alloc and to use a section which contains
> > the per site allocation requests, such a thing is required (we can't
> > build a section with per site allocations requests by using intermediate
> > level allocation function I fear...).
>
> i think initially this should be a fixed-size allocation array + hash as
> well. (like lockdep uses) The number of allocation sites is even the most
> extreme case at most a few thousand - and is typically at most a couple of
> hundred.
>
> Ingo

Why not. And if someone reports too much overruns, we could make the size of this
array an option for the kernel.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-30 22:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans