Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754837AbZKTITX (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:19:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754268AbZKTITX (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:19:23 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f221.google.com ([209.85.220.221]:38096 "EHLO mail-fx0-f221.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753976AbZKTITW (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:19:22 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=CVOSg7oSn6zQuSuKahbpH2DtAJUoPirl+P3m6xr2OduAGya2pYyBlGVlJMyE86nxCg ts2gW9fhMf+EiNRhUobfBXRtlmoWHLueHs29VdBdu2pdkvO1bI1M2r6VcdEXSoPlceuV gBtKCQFpA0mJa6WGxFpJbdZ0kMopON/mopNQw= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20091120081440.GA19778@elte.hu> References: <4B064AF5.9060208@cn.fujitsu.com> <20091120081440.GA19778@elte.hu> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:19:27 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 27931d659e81f010 Message-ID: <84144f020911200019p4978c8e8tc593334d974ee5ff@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] perf: Add 'perf kmem' tool From: Pekka Enberg To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Li Zefan , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Frederic Weisbecker , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu , LKML , "linux-mm@kvack.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1209 Lines: 28 On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Pekka, Eduard and the other slab hackers might have ideas about what > other stats they generally like to see to judge the health of a workload > (or system). kmalloc()/kfree() CPU ping-pong call-sites (i.e. alloc and free happening on different CPUs) is one interesting metric we haven't implemented yet. Valgrind massif tool type of output graph would be helpful as well: http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/ms-manual.html On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > If this iteration looks good to the slab folks then i can apply it as-is > and we can do the other changes relative to that. It looks good to me as > a first step, and it's functional already. Yeah, looks OK to me as the first step. Patch 2 looks premature, though, looking at the output of "perf kmem" from patch 1. Acked-by: Pekka Enberg Pekka -- 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/