On Thu 11-07-13 08:34:45, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 07/11/2013 05:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> I would turn this into a trace point but that would be much weaker > >> because the one who is debugging an issue would have to think about > >> enabling it before the affected workload starts. Which is not possible > >> quite often. Having logs and looking at them afterwards is so > >> _convinient_. > > It would also be a lot weaker than the printk, but we could always add a > counter for this stuff and at least dump it out in /proc/vmstat. We > wouldn't know who was doing it, but we'd at least know someone _was_ > doing it. It would also have a decent chance of getting picked up by > existing log collection systems. But wouldn't be a counter more intrusive code wise? Dunno, but printk serves it purpose and it doesn't add much to the code. -- 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>