Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Additionally, It looks like the output of these macros can be viewed by
> >> ftrace mechanism.
> >
> > *blink* It can?
> I was under strong impression that "function" and "function_graph"
> tracers will give similar kenter/kleave information. Do I miss
> anything important, except the difference in output format?
>
> >
> >> Maybe we should delete them from mm/nommu.c as was pointed by Joe?
> >
> > Why?
> If ftrace is sufficient to get the debug information, there will no
> need to duplicate it.
It isn't sufficient. It doesn't store the parameters or the return value, it
doesn't distinguish the return path in a function when there's more than one,
eg.:
kleave(" = %d [val]", ret);
vs:
kleave(" = %lx", result);
in do_mmap_pgoff() and it doesn't permit you to retrieve data from where the
argument pointers that you don't have pointed to, eg.:
kenter("%p{%d}", region, region->vm_usage);
David
--
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>