Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934505AbZDCOzn (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:55:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933044AbZDCOrY (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:47:24 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:51532 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932967AbZDCOrW (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:47:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:43:44 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pekka Enberg , Vegard Nossum Cc: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu , Mel Gorman , Jason Baron , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, alexn@dsv.su.se, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alexn@telia.com, apw@shadowen.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, haveblue@us.ibm.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitu.com, Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , Fr?d?ric Weisbecker Subject: Re: + page-owner-tracking.patch added to -mm tree Message-ID: <20090403144344.GA9643@elte.hu> References: <20090401125506.GA6406@csn.ul.ie> <20090401131713.GQ12966@elte.hu> <20090401133220.GB6406@csn.ul.ie> <20090401134917.GC18677@elte.hu> <1238597398.23857.11.camel@penberg-laptop> <20090401152251.GB23390@elte.hu> <1238656331.26286.17.camel@penberg-laptop> <20090403042131.GA15669@localhost> <20090403141743.GF8875@elte.hu> <49D61F09.2080808@cs.helsinki.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49D61F09.2080808@cs.helsinki.fi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1244 Lines: 32 * Pekka Enberg wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu wrote: >> >>> One thing I'm not sure about this patch is whether it manages to >>> record an allocation only once, i.e. does it log a single event >>> when/if the slab allocator requests pages? Some time ago I sent a >>> patch adding GFP_NOTRACE to gfp.h, but was rejected. Maybe this >>> could be a way out of the mess. >>> >>> (GFP_NOTRACE would also allow us to log "backend" allocations easily >>> and treat them separately, for the record, or simply filter them >>> out.) >> >> makes a lot of sense IMO to annotate these via a GFP flag. > > Yup, make sense. I think I rejected the patch (did I?) because I > wanted to fix the slub/slab mess differently but here it makes > perfect sense. I'm wondering how much could be shared with the kmemcheck's internal-allocation annotations. There's some overlap (although not a full match) i suspect? Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/