lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Y9emNtEK7z8G7G08@dhcp22.suse.cz> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 12:12:54 +0100 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/madvise: add vmstat statistics for madvise_[cold|pageout] On Fri 27-01-23 19:00:15, Minchan Kim wrote: [...] > Then, let me ask back to you. > > What statistcis in the current vmstat fields or pending fields > (to be merged) among accumulated counter stats sound reasonable > to be part of vmstat fields not tracepoint from your perspective? Most of those could be replaced but for historical reasons a counter was an only solution back then. Some metrics make a lot of sense these days as well. Regular snapshots of vmstat can give a nice overview of the _system_ reclaim activity. > Almost every stat would have corner cases by various reasons and > people would want to know the reason from process, context, function > or block scope depending on how they want to use the stat. > Even, tracepoint you're loving couldn't tell all the detail what they want > without adding more and more as on growing code chages. Quite possible but tracepoints are much easier to modify and shape to a particular need. > However, unlike your worry, people has used such an high level vague > vmstat fields very well to understand/monitor system health even though > it has various miscounting cases since they know the corner cases > are really minor. > > I am really curious what metric we could add in the vmstat instead of > tracepoint in future if we follow your logic. I would say that we should be more and more conservative when extending vmstat counters and use tracing instead as much as possible. I can imagine there could be cases where tracing is not a preferable option. Then we can judge case by case. So far you have presented no real argument, except you already collect vmstat on a larger scale and that would be easier (essentially free from the tool modification POV). That is a weak argument. Especially with a major design flaw already mentioned. I do not have much more to add here. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists