Re: [Crash-utility] [PATCH] display MCNT and PRIVATE when using kmem -p

At 2012-2-28 23:37, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> At 2012-1-10 21:54, Dave Anderson wrote: >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> Hello Dave, >>>> >>>> Glad to hear the capability is desirable. I will start to >>>> implement this >>>> soon. >>>> >>> >>>>>> What if I change struct sub-command to this: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. it can refer to anonymous members (e.g., page._mapcount) >>>>>> 2. it can refer to submembers(e.g., page._count.counter) >>> >>> One other suggestion -- I believe it should not be necessary to >>> support the "page._count.counter" format, because you can get >>> the data by using the container name. Taking the "_count.counter" >>> example: >>> >>> crash> p ((struct page *)0xffffea0000000200)._count.counter >>> $10 = 0 >>> crash> p ((struct page *)0xffffea0000000200)._count >>> $11 = { >>> counter = 0 >>> } >>> crash> >>> >>> So using "page._count" should suffice. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dave >>> >>> -- >>> Crash-utility mailing list >>> Crash-utility(a)redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility >>> >>> >> Hello Dave, >> >> Sorry for reacting late. I have started to realize these item we talked >> before. But, considering your mail about "page._count.counter" format, I >> need to explain my opinion to you. Trying to support the >> "page._count.counter" format is used to help implementing the formatted >> output like: >> >> crash> struct page.flags,_count.counter -..< PAGE_list.txt >> 1024 0 >> 1024 1 >> 1024 1 >> 1024 1 >> >> Compared with "p ((struct page >> *)0xffffea0000000200)._count.counter", >> which can only display only one data each time, the former style can be >> more helpful when parsing the output. >> >> The reason why I want the "page._count.counter" format is I want to >> offer an efficient way to collect a lot of data. Then I'd like you to >> give some comments. Thanks. > > I'm not interested in completely changing the output format of the "struct" > command to display the raw data for multiple fields on a single line as > you've shown in your example above. It's completely redefining the output > format of the command. If you want to implement something like that, it > would have to be governed by a new output option, expressed something like: > > crash> struct -<raw-output-option> page.flags,_count.counter > > And if you were to do something like that, then I still maintain that the > "page._count.counter" format is unnecessary. You're going to be dumping > the whole structure behind the scenes, and then parsing for whatever fields > you're looking for. Do you mean you don't accept changing the output format or simplely the "page._count.counter" format? As we talk before, I want to get "_count.counter" of several pages. So the "page._count.counter" format comes up, which is not acceptable. If you can accept changing the output format by using a new output option, just like: flags = 0 _count = { counter = 0 } ... change to: "0 {0} ..." or "0 { counter = 0 } ..." or 0 "{ .counter = 0 } ..." Actually the original code is easy to read, but hard to parse. So please think about the above change.