On 12/12/2011 08:59 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Tao,
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Tao Ma <tm@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> In trace_mm_vmscan_lru_isolate, we don't output 'active' and 'file'
>> information to the trace event and it is a bit inconvenient for the
>> user to get the real information(like pasted below).
>> mm_vmscan_lru_isolate: isolate_mode=2 order=0 nr_requested=32 nr_scanned=32
>> nr_taken=32 contig_taken=0 contig_dirty=0 contig_failed=0
>>
>> So this patch adds these 2 info to the trace event and it now looks like:
>> mm_vmscan_lru_isolate: isolate_mode=2 order=0 nr_requested=32 nr_scanned=32
>> nr_taken=32 contig_taken=0 contig_dirty=0 contig_failed=0 active=1 file=0
>>
>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> include/trace/events/vmscan.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++--------
>> mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +-
>> mm/vmscan.c | 6 +++---
>> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/trace/events/vmscan.h b/include/trace/events/vmscan.h
>> index edc4b3d..82bc49c 100644
>> --- a/include/trace/events/vmscan.h
>> +++ b/include/trace/events/vmscan.h
>> @@ -266,9 +266,10 @@ DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(mm_vmscan_lru_isolate_template,
>> unsigned long nr_lumpy_taken,
>> unsigned long nr_lumpy_dirty,
>> unsigned long nr_lumpy_failed,
>> - isolate_mode_t isolate_mode),
>> + isolate_mode_t isolate_mode,
>> + int active, int file),
>>
>> - TP_ARGS(order, nr_requested, nr_scanned, nr_taken, nr_lumpy_taken, nr_lumpy_dirty, nr_lumpy_failed, isolate_mode),
>> + TP_ARGS(order, nr_requested, nr_scanned, nr_taken, nr_lumpy_taken, nr_lumpy_dirty, nr_lumpy_failed, isolate_mode, active, file),
>>
>> TP_STRUCT__entry(
>> __field(int, order)
>> @@ -279,6 +280,8 @@ DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(mm_vmscan_lru_isolate_template,
>> __field(unsigned long, nr_lumpy_dirty)
>> __field(unsigned long, nr_lumpy_failed)
>> __field(isolate_mode_t, isolate_mode)
>> + __field(int, active)
>> + __field(int, file)
>> ),
>>
>> TP_fast_assign(
>> @@ -290,9 +293,11 @@ DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(mm_vmscan_lru_isolate_template,
>> __entry->nr_lumpy_dirty = nr_lumpy_dirty;
>> __entry->nr_lumpy_failed = nr_lumpy_failed;
>> __entry->isolate_mode = isolate_mode;
>> + __entry->active = active;
>> + __entry->file = file;
>> ),
>>
>> - TP_printk("isolate_mode=%d order=%d nr_requested=%lu nr_scanned=%lu nr_taken=%lu contig_taken=%lu contig_dirty=%lu contig_failed=%lu",
>> + TP_printk("isolate_mode=%d order=%d nr_requested=%lu nr_scanned=%lu nr_taken=%lu contig_taken=%lu contig_dirty=%lu contig_failed=%lu active=%d file=%d",
>> __entry->isolate_mode,
>> __entry->order,
>> __entry->nr_requested,
>> @@ -300,7 +305,9 @@ DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(mm_vmscan_lru_isolate_template,
>> __entry->nr_taken,
>> __entry->nr_lumpy_taken,
>> __entry->nr_lumpy_dirty,
>> - __entry->nr_lumpy_failed)
>> + __entry->nr_lumpy_failed,
>> + __entry->active,
>> + __entry->file)
>> );
>>
>> DEFINE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_isolate_template, mm_vmscan_lru_isolate,
>> @@ -312,9 +319,10 @@ DEFINE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_isolate_template, mm_vmscan_lru_isolate,
>> unsigned long nr_lumpy_taken,
>> unsigned long nr_lumpy_dirty,
>> unsigned long nr_lumpy_failed,
>> - isolate_mode_t isolate_mode),
>> + isolate_mode_t isolate_mode,
>> + int active, int file),
>>
>> - TP_ARGS(order, nr_requested, nr_scanned, nr_taken, nr_lumpy_taken, nr_lumpy_dirty, nr_lumpy_failed, isolate_mode)
>> + TP_ARGS(order, nr_requested, nr_scanned, nr_taken, nr_lumpy_taken, nr_lumpy_dirty, nr_lumpy_failed, isolate_mode, active, file)
>>
>> );
>>
>> @@ -327,9 +335,10 @@ DEFINE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_isolate_template, mm_vmscan_memcg_isolate,
>> unsigned long nr_lumpy_taken,
>> unsigned long nr_lumpy_dirty,
>> unsigned long nr_lumpy_failed,
>> - isolate_mode_t isolate_mode),
>> + isolate_mode_t isolate_mode,
>> + int active, int file),
>>
>> - TP_ARGS(order, nr_requested, nr_scanned, nr_taken, nr_lumpy_taken, nr_lumpy_dirty, nr_lumpy_failed, isolate_mode)
>> + TP_ARGS(order, nr_requested, nr_scanned, nr_taken, nr_lumpy_taken, nr_lumpy_dirty, nr_lumpy_failed, isolate_mode, active, file)
>>
>> );
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 6aff93c..246fbce 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -1249,7 +1249,7 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_isolate_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>> *scanned = scan;
>>
>> trace_mm_vmscan_memcg_isolate(0, nr_to_scan, scan, nr_taken,
>> - 0, 0, 0, mode);
>> + 0, 0, 0, mode, active, file);
>>
>> return nr_taken;
>> }
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index f54a05b..97955ca 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -1103,7 +1103,7 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode, int file)
>> static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>> struct list_head *src, struct list_head *dst,
>> unsigned long *scanned, int order, isolate_mode_t mode,
>> - int file)
>> + int active, int file)
>> {
>> unsigned long nr_taken = 0;
>> unsigned long nr_lumpy_taken = 0;
>> @@ -1221,7 +1221,7 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>> nr_to_scan, scan,
>> nr_taken,
>> nr_lumpy_taken, nr_lumpy_dirty, nr_lumpy_failed,
>> - mode);
>> + mode, active, file);
>> return nr_taken;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1237,7 +1237,7 @@ static unsigned long isolate_pages_global(unsigned long nr,
>> if (file)
>> lru += LRU_FILE;
>> return isolate_lru_pages(nr, &z->lru[lru].list, dst, scanned, order,
>> - mode, file);
>> + mode, active, file);
>
> I guess you want to count exact scanning number of which lru list.
> But It's impossible now since we do lumpy reclaim so that trace's
> result is mixed by active/inactive list scanning.
> And I don't like adding new argument for just trace although it's trivial.
yeah, I know we do lumpy reclaim, but it has no hint about whether it is
a file or anon lru. So I think we at least need a 'file=[0/1]' in this
trace event.
>
> I think 'mode' is more proper rather than specific 'active'.
> The 'mode' can achieve your goal without passing new argument "active".
sorry, but how can we find the real relationship between 'mode' and
'active'? I am not quite familiar with this field. So if you can
explicit describe it, I am fine to drop this field.
Thanks
Tao
>
> In addition to, current mmotm has various modes.
> So sometime we can get more specific result rather than vauge 'active'.
>
>
> /* Isolate inactive pages */
> #define ISOLATE_INACTIVE ((__force fmode_t)0x1)
> /* Isolate active pages */
> #define ISOLATE_ACTIVE ((__force fmode_t)0x2)
> /* Isolate clean file */
> #define ISOLATE_CLEAN ((__force fmode_t)0x4)
> /* Isolate unmapped file */
> #define ISOLATE_UNMAPPED ((__force fmode_t)0x8)
>
>
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>