Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new field to struct shrinker
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Wed Jul 20 2016 - 10:54:22 EST
On Wed 20-07-16 20:11:09, Janani Ravichandran wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 2016, at 8:03 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon 11-07-16 10:12:51, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >> What mechanism do you have in mind for obtaining the name,
> >> Michal?
> > Not sure whether tracing infrastructure allows printk like %ps. If not
> > then it doesn't sound too hard to add.
> It does allow %ps. Currently what is being printed is the function symbol
> of the callback using %pF. Iâd like to know why %pF is used instead of
> %ps in this case.
>From a quick look into the code %pF should be doing the same thing as
%ps in the end. Some architectures just need some magic to get a proper
address of the function.
> Michal, just to make sure I understand you correctly, do you mean that we
> could infer the names of the shrinkers by looking at the names of their callbacks?
Yes, %ps can then be used for the name of the shrinker structure
(assuming it is available).