Re: [PATCH 0/13] maps: pagemap, kpagemap, and related cleanups

[Nick Piggin]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > Do a full pagetable walk, with all the associated locking from within
> > > a systemtap script?  I'd be surprised.  Maybe if it's mostly hand-coded
> > > in C, perhaps.  Then you just end up with the same thing, don't you?
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 01:40:08PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > And my problem isn't with the hardcoded pagetable walker. Yeah, we'd
> > probably still keep the pagetable callback walker thingy with Matt's
> > associated cleanups (and my subsequent ones to clean it up more and
> > move it to mm/): there are other in-kernel users for that anyway.
> > The point is the proc API, and exposing random little parts of deep
> > kernel internals that some people happen to find useful at the time.
> > (which is why we have an incredible proliferation of these things).
> > With systemtap scripts, you could walk pagetables and print *the exact
> > page information you want*, or you could walk pfns, or LRU, or page_tree,
> > or walk the page tree then the rmap structures. And you can selectively
> > cull out items you don't care about if you only care about a subset of
> > items, based on arbitrary criteria. And you can most likely do all that
> > more efficiently than with a conglomeration of various /proc files
> > (assuming they even provide what you want in the first place).
>
>
> The EM guys are unwilling or unable for support-oriented reasons to
> deal with anything but unmodified kernels as shipped by distros.

And I think major distros ship with kprobes enabled, so that is yet
another reason why systemtap should be considered before adding these
proc interfaces.

Thanks,
Nick

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/