On Thu 29-12-16 15:02:04, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:30:29PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > > > mm_vmscan_lru_isolate currently prints only whether the LRU we isolate > > from is file or anonymous but we do not know which LRU this is. It is > > useful to know whether the list is file or anonymous as well. Change > > the tracepoint to show symbolic names of the lru rather. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > Not exactly same with this but idea is almost same. > I used almost same tracepoint to investigate agging(i.e., deactivating) problem > in 32b kernel with node-lru. > It was enough. Namely, I didn't need tracepoint in shrink_active_list like your > first patch. > Your first patch is more straightforwad and information. But as you introduced > this patch, I want to ask in here. > Isn't it enough with this patch without your first one to find a such problem? I assume this should be a reply to http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161228153032.10821-8-mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx, right? And you are right that for the particular problem it was enough to have a tracepoint inside inactive_list_is_low and shrink_active_list one wasn't really needed. On the other hand aging issues are really hard to debug as well and so I think that both are useful. The first one tell us _why_ we do aging while the later _how_ we do that. -- Michal Hocko 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>