Re: [PATCH] tracing/kmemtrace: normalize the raw tracer event tothe unified tracing API
From: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu
Date: Tue Dec 30 2008 - 03:41:19 EST
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 09:16:00AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 3)
>
> the most lowlevel (and hence most allocation-footprint sensitive) object
> to track would be the memory object itself. I think the best approach
> would be to do a static, limited size hash that could track up to N memory
> objects.
>
> The advantage of such an approach is that it does not impact allocation
> patterns at all (besides the one-time allocation cost of the hash itself
> during tracer startup).
kmemtrace-user handles this by analysing offline :). I presume you could get
around this by discarding every hash collision in a well-sized
hashtable. The hashing algo in kmemtrace-user performs okay, considering
it fills the hashtable almost entirely, but I presume you're doing that
in-kernel and using other available code.
> And this too would be driven from ftrace mainly - the SLAB code would only
> offer the alloc+free callbacks with the object IDs. [ and this means that
> we could detect memory leaks by looking at the hash table and print out
> the age of entries :-) ]
Some time ago I dropped timestamps because they were not providing a
good way to reorder packets in userspace. We're currently relying on a
sequence number to do that. You could take that as 'age', but it's not
temporally-meaningful.
Eduard
--
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/