[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150317074025.GA27548@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:40:25 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Stefan Strogin <s.strogin@...tner.samsung.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <d.safonov@...tner.samsung.com>,
Pintu Kumar <pintu.k@...sung.com>,
Weijie Yang <weijie.yang@...sung.com>,
Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>,
Hui Zhu <zhuhui@...omi.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Dyasly Sergey <s.dyasly@...sung.com>,
Vyacheslav Tyrtov <v.tyrtov@...sung.com>,
Aleksei Mateosian <a.mateosian@...sung.com>,
gregory.0xf0@...il.com, sasha.levin@...cle.com, gioh.kim@....com,
pavel@....cz, stefan.strogin@...il.com,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] mm: cma: add trace events to debug
physically-contiguous memory allocations
* Stefan Strogin <s.strogin@...tner.samsung.com> wrote:
> > +TRACE_EVENT(cma_alloc,
> > +
> > + TP_PROTO(struct cma *cma, struct page *page, int count),
> > +
> > + TP_ARGS(cma, page, count),
> > +
> > + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > + __field(struct page *, page)
> > + __field(unsigned long, count)
> > + ),
> > +
> > + TP_fast_assign(
> > + __entry->page = page;
> > + __entry->count = count;
> > + ),
> > +
> > + TP_printk("page=%p pfn=%lu count=%lu",
> > + __entry->page,
> > + __entry->page ? page_to_pfn(__entry->page) : 0,
> > + __entry->count)
So I'm wondering, the fast-assign side is not equivalent to the
TP_printk() side:
> > + __entry->page = page;
> > + __entry->page ? page_to_pfn(__entry->page) : 0,
to me it seems it would be useful if MM tracing standardized on pfn
printing. Just like you did for trace_cma_release().
Also:
> > + __entry->page ? page_to_pfn(__entry->page) : 0,
pfn 0 should probably be reserved for the true 0th pfn - those exist
in some machines. Returning -1ll could be the 'no such pfn' condition?
> > + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > + __field(unsigned long, pfn)
Btw., does pfn always fit into 32 bits on 32-bit platforms?
> > + __field(unsigned long, count)
Does this have to be 64-bit on 64-bit platforms?
> > + ),
> > +
> > + TP_fast_assign(
> > + __entry->pfn = pfn;
> > + __entry->count = count;
> > + ),
> > +
> > + TP_printk("pfn=%lu page=%p count=%lu",
> > + __entry->pfn,
> > + pfn_to_page(__entry->pfn),
> > + __entry->count)
So here you print more in the TP_printk() line than in the fast-assign
side.
Again I'd double check the various boundary conditions.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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