On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:13:40AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:25:13AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:49:47PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Seems you're all missing the obvious. > > > > > > Add a tracepoint for a shrinker callback that includes a "name" > > > field, have the shrinker callback fill it out appropriately. e.g > > > in the superblock shrinker: > > > > > > trace_shrinker_callback(shrinker, shrink_control, sb->s_type->name); > > > > > > > That misses capturing the latency of the call unless there is a begin/end > > tracepoint. > > Sure, but I didn't see that in the email talking about how to add a > name. Even if it is a requirement, it's not necessary as we've > already got shrinker runtime measurements from the > trace_mm_shrink_slab_start and trace_mm_shrink_slab_end trace > points. With the above callback event, shrinker call runtime is > simply the time between the calls to the same shrinker within > mm_shrink_slab start/end trace points. > Fair point. It's not that hard to correlate them. > <SNIP> > > > My understanding was the point of the tracepoints was to get detailed > > information on points where the kernel is known to stall for long periods > > of time. > > First I've heard that's what tracepoints are supposed to be used > for. I meant the specific case of trace_X_begin followed by trace_X_end, not tracepoints in general. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>