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 SMTP id 2F5906B0082 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:19:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by fxm25 with SMTP id 25so3598592fxm.6 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:19:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20091120081440.GA19778@elte.hu> References: <4B064AF5.9060208@cn.fujitsu.com> <20091120081440.GA19778@elte.hu> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:19:27 +0200 Message-ID: <84144f020911200019p4978c8e8tc593334d974ee5ff@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] perf: Add 'perf kmem' tool From: Pekka Enberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Pekka, Eduard and the other slab hackers might have ideas about what > other stats they generally like to see to judge the health of a workload > (or system). kmalloc()/kfree() CPU ping-pong call-sites (i.e. alloc and free happening on different CPUs) is one interesting metric we haven't implemented yet. Valgrind massif tool type of output graph would be helpful as well: http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/ms-manual.html On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > If this iteration looks good to the slab folks then i can apply it as-is > and we can do the other changes relative to that. It looks good to me as > a first step, and it's functional already. Yeah, looks OK to me as the first step. Patch 2 looks premature, though, looking at the output of "perf kmem" from patch 1. Acked-by: Pekka Enberg 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