Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm, vmscan: show LRU name in mm_vmscan_lru_isolate tracepoint
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Fri Dec 30 2016 - 04:33:34 EST
On Fri 30-12-16 10:56:25, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 08:56:49AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 29-12-16 15:02:04, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:30:29PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > mm_vmscan_lru_isolate currently prints only whether the LRU we isolate
> > > > from is file or anonymous but we do not know which LRU this is. It is
> > > > useful to know whether the list is file or anonymous as well. Change
> > > > the tracepoint to show symbolic names of the lru rather.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Not exactly same with this but idea is almost same.
> > > I used almost same tracepoint to investigate agging(i.e., deactivating) problem
> > > in 32b kernel with node-lru.
> > > It was enough. Namely, I didn't need tracepoint in shrink_active_list like your
> > > first patch.
> > > Your first patch is more straightforwad and information. But as you introduced
> > > this patch, I want to ask in here.
> > > Isn't it enough with this patch without your first one to find a such problem?
> > I assume this should be a reply to
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161228153032.10821-8-mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx, right?
> I don't know my browser says "No such Message-ID known"
Hmm, not sure why it didn't get archived at lkml.kernel.org.
I meant https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/28/167
> > And you are right that for the particular problem it was enough to have
> > a tracepoint inside inactive_list_is_low and shrink_active_list one
> > wasn't really needed. On the other hand aging issues are really hard to
> What kinds of aging issue? What's the problem? How such tracepoint can help?
> Please describe.
If you do not see that active list is shrunk then you do not know why it
is not shrunk. It might be a active/inactive ratio or just a plan bug
like the 32b issue me and you were debugging.
> > debug as well and so I think that both are useful. The first one tell us
> > _why_ we do aging while the later _how_ we do that.
> Solve reported problem first you already knew. It would be no doubt
> to merge and then send other patches about "it might be useful" with
> useful scenario.
I am not sure I understand. The point of tracepoints is to be
pro-actively helpful not only to add something that has been useful in
one-off cases. A particular debugging session might be really helpful to
tell us what we are missing and this was the case here to a large part.
Once I was looking there I just wanted to save the pain of adding more
debugging information in future and allow people to debug their issue
without forcing them to recompile the kernel. I believe this is one of
the strong usecases for tracepoints in the first place.