On 07/11/2013 08:42 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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. Yeah, I prefer the printk too. I'd rather see a vmstat entry than a tracepoint, though. -- 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>