[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z0IKhWfOr4ppnQem@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:01:57 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Meta kernel team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mmap_lock: optimize mmap_lock tracepoints
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 10:09:39PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> TP_printk(
> - "mm=%p memcg_path=%s write=%s",
> - __entry->mm,
> - __get_str(memcg_path),
> + "mm=%p memcg_id=%llu write=%s",
> + __entry->mm, __entry->memcg_id,
> __entry->write ? "true" : "false"
Is it actually useful to print out the (hashed) pointer of the mm?
Wouldn't the PID be more useful so you could actually associate it with
a task?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists