|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu> |
|| ||Re: [PATCH 4/4] tracing, page-allocator: Add a postprocessing
script for page-allocator-related ftrace events |
|| ||Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:18:18 -0700|
|| ||penberg-AT-cs.helsinki.fi, a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl, fweisbec-AT-gmail.com,
rostedt-AT-goodmis.org, mel-AT-csn.ul.ie, lwoodman-AT-redhat.com,
riel-AT-redhat.com, peterz-AT-infradead.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org,
|| ||Article, Thread
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:57:17 +0200
Ingo Molnar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Let me demonstrate these features in action (i've applied the
> patches for testing to -tip):
So? The fact that certain things can be done doesn't mean that there's
a demand for them, nor that anyone will _use_ this stuff.
As usual, we're adding tracepoints because we feel we must add
tracepoints, not because anyone has a need for the data which they
There is some benefit in providing MM developers with some code which
they can copy-n-paste for their day-to-day activity. But as I said,
they can do that with vmstat too.
If we can get rid of vmstat all together (and meminfo) and replace all
that with common infrastructure then that would be a good cleanup. But
if we end up leaving vmstat and meminfo in place and then adding
_another_ statistic gathering mechanism in parallel then we haven't
cleaned anything up at all - it just gets worse.
I don't really oppose the patches - they're small. But they seem
rather useless too.
It would be nice to at least partially remove the vmstat/meminfo
infrastructure but I don't think we can do that?
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to email@example.com. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"firstname.lastname@example.org"> email@example.com </a>
to post comments)