Message-ID: <78e55029-0eaf-b4b3-7e86-1086b97c60c6@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 17:07:06 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
        roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, dave@...olabs.net, willy@...radead.org,
        liam.howlett@...cle.com, void@...ifault.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, peterx@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
        mcgrof@...nel.org, masahiroy@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org,
        changbin.du@...el.com, ytcoode@...il.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, bristot@...hat.com,
        vschneid@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com, glider@...gle.com,
        elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        songmuchun@...edance.com, arnd@...db.de, jbaron@...mai.com,
        rientjes@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Code tagging framework and applications

On 01.09.22 16:23, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:05:03AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 31.08.22 21:01, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:47:32PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Wed 31-08-22 11:19:48, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>>> Whatever asking for an explanation as to why equivalent functionality
>>>>> cannot not be created from ftrace/kprobe/eBPF/whatever is reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> Fully agreed and this is especially true for a change this size
>>>> 77 files changed, 3406 insertions(+), 703 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> In the case of memory allocation accounting, you flat cannot do this with ftrace
>>> - you could maybe do a janky version that isn't fully accurate, much slower,
>>> more complicated for the developer to understand and debug and more complicated
>>> for the end user.
>>>
>>> But please, I invite anyone who's actually been doing this with ftrace to
>>> demonstrate otherwise.
>>>
>>> Ftrace just isn't the right tool for the job here - we're talking about adding
>>> per callsite accounting to some of the fastest fast paths in the kernel.
>>>
>>> And the size of the changes for memory allocation accounting are much more
>>> reasonable:
>>>  33 files changed, 623 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> The code tagging library should exist anyways, it's been open coded half a dozen
>>> times in the kernel already.
>>
>> Hi Kent,
>>
>> independent of the other discussions, if it's open coded already, does
>> it make sense to factor that already-open-coded part out independently
>> of the remainder of the full series here?
> 
> It's discussed in the cover letter, that is exactly how the patch series is
> structured.

Skimming over the patches (that I was CCed on) and skimming over the
cover letter, I got the impression that everything after patch 7 is
introducing something new instead of refactoring something out.

>  
>> [I didn't immediately spot if this series also attempts already to
>> replace that open-coded part]
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> Honestly, some days it feels like lkml is just as bad as slashdot, with people
> wanting to get in their two cents without actually reading...

... and of course you had to reply like that. I should just have learned
from my last upstream experience with you and kept you on my spam list.

Thanks, bye

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists