[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZFgjc3rGbqGNONnS@moria.home.lan>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2023 18:17:23 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
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,
tj@...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, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling
On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 06:09:11PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 7 May 2023 17:53:09 -0400
> Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> > The underscore is a legitimate complaint - I brought this up in
> > development, not sure why it got lost. We'll do something better with a
> > consistent suffix, perhaps kmem_cache_alloc_noacct().
>
> Would "_noprofile()" be a better name. I'm not sure what "acct" means.
account - but _noprofile() is probably better. Didn't suggest it at
first because of an association in my head with CPU profiling, but
considering we already renamed the feature to memory allocation
profiling... :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists