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 09:16:00AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 3)
>
> the most lowlevel (and hence most allocation-footprint sensitive) object
> to track would be the memory object itself. I think the best approach
> would be to do a static, limited size hash that could track up to N memory
> objects.
>
> The advantage of such an approach is that it does not impact allocation
> patterns at all (besides the one-time allocation cost of the hash itself
> during tracer startup).

kmemtrace-user handles this by analysing offline :). I presume you could get
around this by discarding every hash collision in a well-sized
hashtable. The hashing algo in kmemtrace-user performs okay, considering
it fills the hashtable almost entirely, but I presume you're doing that
in-kernel and using other available code.

> And this too would be driven from ftrace mainly - the SLAB code would only
> offer the alloc+free callbacks with the object IDs. [ and this means that
> we could detect memory leaks by looking at the hash table and print out
> the age of entries :-) ]

Some time ago I dropped timestamps because they were not providing a
good way to reorder packets in userspace. We're currently relying on a
sequence number to do that. You could take that as 'age', but it's not
temporally-meaningful.


Eduard



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-30 09:43    [W:0.064 / U:10.088 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site