Re: extent-patch and overview of what is supposed to follow

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 11:55:06AM +0200, Lars Heidieker wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 11:40, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Lars Heidieker wrote:
> >>That's what I meant with the overhaul, the statistics must be per
> >>CPU then, the current statistics implementation is single threaded
> >>(as malloc itself).
> >>Technically it would be possible to add some malloc like type
> >>information to kmem for statistics, this involves changing the
> >>kmem's interface to include such type information, while pool-like
> >>logging does not involve such changes.
> >Err, why ? you'd have to pass a name, one way or another.
> >I don't care if the name as argument is M_MBUF or "mbuf"
> >(that is, a constant or a string), but right now kmem doesn't have
> >arguments like that. So you'll have to change kmem, eiter way.
> >
> >
> The pool logging is done via macros that trace from where the call
> comes without changing the call interface to the pool and for kmem
> this would be just a pass through.

It seems we're not talking about the same "logging".
You seems to be talking about tracing the functions calls.
I'm talking about higher-level information which can be displayed with
vmstat -m

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--