[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161006120050.GG10570@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:00:50 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Janani Ravichandran <janani.rvchndrn@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...riel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vdavydov@...tuozzo.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] scripts: Include postprocessing script for memory
allocation tracing
On Fri 23-09-16 10:07:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 22-09-16 11:30:36, Janani Ravichandran wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 19, 2016, at 5:42 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue 13-09-16 14:04:49, Janani Ravichandran wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sep 12, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I’m using the function graph tracer to see how long __alloc_pages_nodemask()
> > >> took.
> > >
> > > How can you map the function graph tracer to a specif context? Let's say
> > > I would like to know why a particular allocation took so long. Would
> > > that be possible?
> >
> > Maybe not. If the latencies are due to direct reclaim or memory compaction, you
> > get some information from the tracepoints (like mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_begin,
> > mm_compaction_begin, etc). But otherwise, you don’t get any context information.
> > Function graph only gives the time spent in alloc_pages_nodemask() in that case.
>
> Then I really think that we need a starting trace point. I think that
> having the full context information is really helpful in order to
> understand latencies induced by allocations.
Are you planning to pursue this path?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists