[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1339411150.4999.43.camel@lappy>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:39:10 +0200
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, dan.magenheimer@...cle.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] mm: frontswap: add tracing support
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 11:33 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 07:51 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> Add tracepoints to frontswap API.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Normally, adding new tracepoint isn't easy without special reason.
> > I'm not sure all of frontswap function tracing would be valuable.
> > Shsha, Why do you want to add tracing?
> > What's scenario you want to use tracing?
I added tracing when working on code to integrate KVM with
frontswap/cleancache and needed to see that the flow of code between
host side kvm and zcache and guest side cleancache, frontswap and kvm is
correct.
> Yup, the added tracepoints look more like function tracing. Shouldn't
> you use something like kprobes or ftrace/perf for this?
I'm not sure really, there are quite a few options provided by the
kernel...
I used tracepoints because I was working on code that integrates with
KVM, and saw that KVM was working with tracepoints in a very similar way
to what I needed, so I assumed tracepoints is the right choice for me.
--
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