[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1217319927.7813.113.camel@penberg-laptop>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:25:27 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
mpm@...enic.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] kmemtrace: Core implementation.
Hi Eduard-Gabriel,
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 20:35 +0300, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu wrote:
> > > > +struct kmemtrace_event {
> > > > + u8 event_id; /* Allocate or free? */
> > > > + u8 type_id; /* Kind of allocation/free. */
> > > > + u16 event_size; /* Size of event */
> > > > + s32 node; /* Target CPU. */
> > > > + u64 call_site; /* Caller address. */
> > > > + u64 ptr; /* Pointer to allocation. */
> > > > + u64 bytes_req; /* Number of bytes requested. */
> > > > + u64 bytes_alloc; /* Number of bytes allocated. */
> > > > + u64 gfp_flags; /* Requested flags. */
> > > > + s64 timestamp; /* When the operation occured in ns. */
> > > > +} __attribute__ ((__packed__));
> >
> > See below for detail, but this event record is way too big and not
> > adapted to 32 bits architectures.
>
> Pekka, what do you think?
Mathieu does have a good point of optimizing the memory use of an
individual event so I'm okay with that. But we really don't want to
force people the analyze the dump on same architecture where we captured
it. So as long as that is taken care of, I'm happy.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists