* Stefan Strogin <s.strogin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +TRACE_EVENT(cma_alloc,
> > +
> > + TP_PROTO(struct cma *cma, struct page *page, int count),
> > +
> > + TP_ARGS(cma, page, count),
> > +
> > + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > + __field(struct page *, page)
> > + __field(unsigned long, count)
> > + ),
> > +
> > + TP_fast_assign(
> > + __entry->page = page;
> > + __entry->count = count;
> > + ),
> > +
> > + TP_printk("page=%p pfn=%lu count=%lu",
> > + __entry->page,
> > + __entry->page ? page_to_pfn(__entry->page) : 0,
> > + __entry->count)
So I'm wondering, the fast-assign side is not equivalent to the
TP_printk() side:
> > + __entry->page = page;
> > + __entry->page ? page_to_pfn(__entry->page) : 0,
to me it seems it would be useful if MM tracing standardized on pfn
printing. Just like you did for trace_cma_release().
Also:
> > + __entry->page ? page_to_pfn(__entry->page) : 0,
pfn 0 should probably be reserved for the true 0th pfn - those exist
in some machines. Returning -1ll could be the 'no such pfn' condition?
> > + TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > + __field(unsigned long, pfn)
Btw., does pfn always fit into 32 bits on 32-bit platforms?
> > + __field(unsigned long, count)
Does this have to be 64-bit on 64-bit platforms?
> > + ),
> > +
> > + TP_fast_assign(
> > + __entry->pfn = pfn;
> > + __entry->count = count;
> > + ),
> > +
> > + TP_printk("pfn=%lu page=%p count=%lu",
> > + __entry->pfn,
> > + pfn_to_page(__entry->pfn),
> > + __entry->count)
So here you print more in the TP_printk() line than in the fast-assign
side.
Again I'd double check the various boundary conditions.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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>