Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756147AbZKTIbH (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:31:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752752AbZKTIbG (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:31:06 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:49793 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751698AbZKTIbF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:31:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:30:53 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Li Zefan , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Frederic Weisbecker , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu , LKML , "linux-mm@kvack.org" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] perf: Add 'perf kmem' tool Message-ID: <20091120083053.GB19778@elte.hu> References: <4B064AF5.9060208@cn.fujitsu.com> <20091120081440.GA19778@elte.hu> <84144f020911200019p4978c8e8tc593334d974ee5ff@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84144f020911200019p4978c8e8tc593334d974ee5ff@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 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: 1557 Lines: 38 * Pekka Enberg wrote: > 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 Great - thanks for the quick ack! Regarding patch 2 - can we set some definitive benchmark threshold for that? I.e. a list of must-have features in 'perf kmem' before we can do it? 100% information and analysis equivalency with kmemtrace-user tool? Eduard, what do you think? 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/