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

[qiaonuohan]

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 at 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.

>
> Dave
>
> --
> Crash-utility mailing list
> Crash-utility at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
>
>


-- 
--
Regards
Qiao Nuohan