[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZFKqh5Dh93UULdse@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 08:40:07 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, mgorman@...e.de, dave@...olabs.net,
willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, corbet@....net,
void@...ifault.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
arnd@...db.de, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, peterx@...hat.com,
david@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, mcgrof@...nel.org,
masahiroy@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, dennis@...nel.org,
muchun.song@...ux.dev, rppt@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
pasha.tatashin@...een.com, yosryahmed@...gle.com,
yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
andreyknvl@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
ebiggers@...gle.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, jbaron@...mai.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:19:24AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Taking a step back though, given the multitude of allocation sites in
> > the kernel, it's a bit odd that the only accounting we do is the tiny
> > fraction of voluntary vmstat/meminfo reporting. We try to cover the
> > biggest consumers with this of course, but it's always going to be
> > incomplete and is maintenance overhead too. There are on average
> > several gigabytes in unknown memory (total - known vmstats) on our
> > machines. It's difficult to detect regressions easily. And it's per
> > definition the unexpected cornercases that are the trickiest to track
> > down. So it might be doable with BPF, but it does feel like the kernel
> > should do a better job of tracking out of the box and without
> > requiring too much plumbing and somewhat fragile kernel allocation API
> > tracking and probing from userspace.
>
> Yeah, easy / default visibility argument does make sense to me.
So, a bit of addition here. If this is the thrust, the debugfs part seems
rather redundant, right? That's trivially obtainable with tracing / bpf and
in a more flexible and performant manner. Also, are we happy with recording
just single depth for persistent tracking?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists