[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161230091117.nkxn3bnhle3bofhw@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:11:17 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] vm, vmscan: enahance vmscan tracepoints
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:30:25PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> while debugging [1] I've realized that there is some room for
> improvements in the tracepoints set we offer currently. I had hard times
> to make any conclusion from the existing ones. The resulting problem
> turned out to be active list aging [2] and we are missing at least two
> tracepoints to debug such a problem.
>
> Some existing tracepoints could export more information to see _why_ the
> reclaim progress cannot be made not only _how much_ we could reclaim.
> The later could be seen quite reasonably from the vmstat counters
> already. It can be argued that we are showing too many implementation
> details in those tracepoints but I consider them way too lowlevel
> already to be usable by any kernel independent userspace. I would be
> _really_ surprised if anything but debugging tools have used them.
>
> Any feedback is highly appreciated.
>
There is some minor overhead introduced in some paths regardless of
whether the tracepoints are active or not but I suspect it's negligible
in the context of the overhead of reclaim in general so;
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists