Aaron, Bryn's name change and pte_file() suggestion make good sense. I also wonder if it's worth adding an option to alternatively display the swap count in pages? The only crash commands I can think of off-hand that use kilobytes are the "ps" and "swap" commands, and those were done that way because of the Linux commands of the same name. But when I want to see how much swap a process is using I do this to get a page count: crash> vm -p 1 | grep SWAP | wc -l 382 crash> Or maybe just show both all the time? Just a thought... In any case, I've put the module in the crash extensions page as-is for now. When you're ready to update it, I'll just plug in your latest-and-greatest version. http://people.redhat.com/anderson/extensions.html Thanks, Dave ----- Original Message ----- > Hi Bryn, > > Thanks for the feedback. > I'll work on it. With regards to the name change, I think it's worth > changing it to 'pswap'. > > Cheers, > Aaron > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bryn M. Reeves" <bmr@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and > development" <crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Aaron Tomlin" <atomlin@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:51:35 PM > Subject: Re: Thoughts on swap_usage Crash extension? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 01/30/2013 01:17 PM, Aaron Tomlin wrote: > > I've made some changes [1] and included the help page, as per your > > request. It's still x86_64 specific for now. What do you think? > > [1]: > > https://github.com/aktlin115/crash-extension/blob/master/swap_usage.c > > Hi > > > Aaron, > > Extension looks useful. I was wondering about the name - would you > consider renaming it as 'pswap'? It's less to type than swap_usage (as > there's already a 'swap' command but nothing 'psw*'). > > For the _PAGE_FILE problem it might be possible to address this by > providing a wrapper like the pte_file() interface defined by arch > headers in the kernel sources. > > There seem to be 11 arches (inc. x86 and powerpc) using (pte_val(pte) > & _PAGE_FILE) idiom. Of the rest s390 has a well-commented explanation > of its special cases and ARM uses a different name for the bit: > > #define pte_file(pte) (pte_val(pte) & L_PTE_FILE) > > It seems like these could all be handled quite reasonably (actually > the number that are identical maybe it's the case that this could be > tidied up in the kernel so that arches that really need custom > versions can override pte_file() but that's not really my area). > > Regards, > Bryn. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAlEJJWcACgkQ6YSQoMYUY97PKwCfa6ZuC2MuTrYa2E42WSEkBPjM > 234An1RQFlRxrDFgMu/cxdhEMzfsRGGZ > =VY7a > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > Crash-utility mailing list > Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility > -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility