Re: [PATCH 4/4] tracing, page-allocator: Add a postprocessingscript for page-allocator-related ftrace events

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:57:17 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> 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
gather.

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 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/