[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020911200019p4978c8e8tc593334d974ee5ff@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:19:27 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] perf: Add 'perf kmem' tool
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> Pekka, Eduard and the other slab hackers might have ideas about what
> other stats they generally like to see to judge the health of a workload
> (or system).
kmalloc()/kfree() CPU ping-pong call-sites (i.e. alloc and free
happening on different CPUs) is one interesting metric we haven't
implemented yet. Valgrind massif tool type of output graph would be
helpful as well:
http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/ms-manual.html
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> If this iteration looks good to the slab folks then i can apply it as-is
> and we can do the other changes relative to that. It looks good to me as
> a first step, and it's functional already.
Yeah, looks OK to me as the first step. Patch 2 looks premature,
though, looking at the output of "perf kmem" from patch 1.
Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
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