From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CF76B009B for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:47:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B0657A4.2040606@cs.helsinki.fi> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:47:32 +0200 From: Pekka Enberg MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] perf: Add 'perf kmem' tool References: <4B064AF5.9060208@cn.fujitsu.com> <20091120081440.GA19778@elte.hu> <84144f020911200019p4978c8e8tc593334d974ee5ff@mail.gmail.com> <20091120083053.GB19778@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20091120083053.GB19778@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Li Zefan , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Frederic Weisbecker , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu , LKML , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: Ingo Molnar kirjoitti: > Regarding patch 2 - can we set some definitive benchmark threshold for > that? I.e. a list of must-have features in 'perf kmem' before we can do > it? 100% information and analysis equivalency with kmemtrace-user tool? I'd be interested to hear Eduard's comment on that. That said, I'll try to find some time to test "perf kmem" and provide feedback on that. I can ACK the patch when I'm happy with the output. :-) I'm mostly interested in two scenarios: (1) getting a nice report on worst fragmented call-sites (perf kmem needs symbol lookup) and (2) doing "perf kmem record" on machine A (think embedded here) and then "perf kmem report" on machine B. I haven't tried kmemtrace-user for a while but it did support both of them quite nicely at some point. Pekka -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org