On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:16:21 +0200
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Right, but that should work with the latest trace-cmd. Does it?
>
> Hmm, by "sparse memory model without vmemmap" I don't mean there's a
> number instead of "vmemmap_base". I mean CONFIG_SPARSEMEM=y
>
> Then __pfn_to_page() looks like this:
>
> #define __page_to_pfn(pg) \
> ({ const struct page *__pg = (pg); \
> int __sec = page_to_section(__pg); \
> (unsigned long)(__pg - __section_mem_map_addr(__nr_to_section(__sec))); \
> })
>
> Then the part of format file looks like this:
>
> REC->pfn != -1UL ? ({ unsigned long __pfn = (REC->pfn); struct mem_section *__sec = __pfn_to_section(__pfn); __section_mem_map_addr(__sec) + __pfn; }) : ((void *)0)
Ouch.
>
> The section things involve some array lookups, so I don't see how we
> could pass it to tracing userspace. Would we want to special-case
> this config to store both pfn and struct page in the trace frame? And
> make sure the simpler ones work despite all the exsisting gotchas?
> I'd rather say we should either store both pfn and page pointer, or
> just throw away the page pointer as the pfn is enough to e.g. match
> alloc and free, and also much more deterministic.
Write up a patch and we'll take a look.
-- Steve
--
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>
