lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 14/23] mm/slab_common: print cache name in tracepoints
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 04:05:14PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 4/14/22 10:57, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > Print cache name in tracepoints. If there is no corresponding cache
> > (kmalloc in SLOB or kmalloc_large_node), use KMALLOC_{,LARGE_}NAME
> > macro.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
>
> Regarding tracepoints, I'm not sure it's a good idea to unify kmalloc and
> kmem_cache_alloc. I think the common use case is to trace kmalloc as there
> are many different callers, and then I'm not interested in kmem_cache_alloc
> callers much.

Make sense.

> What I would suggest instead is:
> - drop the _node versions, add node to normal versions
> - drop the kmem_alloc EVENT_CLASS, as kmalloc is different enough from
> kmem_cache_alloc (see next points), define separately as TRACE_EVENT().
> - printing cache_name makes sense to add for kmem_cache_alloc (also allows
> filtering events) but not for kmalloc.
> - kmem_cache_alloc with name can then drop the bytes_req, bytes_alloc as
> they are fixed for given name (and can be read from slabinfo).

Those suggestions makes sense to me.
kmalloc and kmem_cache_alloc are a bit different.

> Not using a common tracepoint will prevent some later unifications/cleanup
> (patch 21?), but hopefully not too much?

In v2 unification of __kmalloc_node()/kfree() somewhat depends on unified tracepoint.
I'll try to unify them with this approach in v3.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-04-30 16:07    [W:0.112 / U:6.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site