Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] mm: cma: add trace events to debug physically-contiguous memory allocations

[Stefan Strogin <s.strogin@partner.samsung.com>]

On 17/03/15 02:47, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> +TRACE_EVENT(cma_alloc,
>>> +
>>> +	TP_PROTO(struct cma *cma, struct page *page, int count),
>>> +
>>> +	TP_ARGS(cma, page, count),
>>> +
>>> +	TP_STRUCT__entry(
>>> +		__field(struct page *, page)
>>> +		__field(unsigned long, count)
>>> +	),
>>> +
>>> +	TP_fast_assign(
>>> +		__entry->page = page;
>>> +		__entry->count = count;
>>> +	),
>>> +
>>> +	TP_printk("page=%p pfn=%lu count=%lu",
>>> +		  __entry->page,
>>> +		  __entry->page ? page_to_pfn(__entry->page) : 0,
> 
> Can page_to_pfn(value) ever be different throughout the life of the
> boot? That is, can it return a different result given the same value
> (vmalloc area comes to mind).
> 
>>> +	TP_printk("pfn=%lu page=%p count=%lu",
>>> +		  __entry->pfn,
>>> +		  pfn_to_page(__entry->pfn),
> 
> Same here. Can pfn_to_page(value) ever return a different result with
> the same value in a single boot?
> 

Thank you for the reply, Steven.
I supposed that page_to_pfn() cannot change after mem_map
initialization, can it? I'm not sure about such things as memory hotplug
though...
Also cma_alloc() calls alloc_contig_range() which returns pfn, then it's
converted to struct page * and cma_alloc() returns struct page *, and
vice versa in cma_release() (receives struct page * and passes pfn to
free_contig_rage()).
Do you mean that printing pfn (or struct page *) in trace event is
redundant?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>