Message-ID: <9e14adec-2842-458d-8a58-af6a2d18d823@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:04:58 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, 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, 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,
 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,
 vvvvvv@...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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/35] Memory allocation profiling

On 13.02.24 22:58, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:24 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon 12-02-24 13:38:46, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>> [...]
>>> We're aiming to get this in the next merge window, for 6.9. The feedback
>>> we've gotten has been that even out of tree this patchset has already
>>> been useful, and there's a significant amount of other work gated on the
>>> code tagging functionality included in this patchset [2].
>>
>> I suspect it will not come as a surprise that I really dislike the
>> implementation proposed here. I will not repeat my arguments, I have
>> done so on several occasions already.
>>
>> Anyway, I didn't go as far as to nak it even though I _strongly_ believe
>> this debugging feature will add a maintenance overhead for a very long
>> time. I can live with all the downsides of the proposed implementation
>> _as long as_ there is a wider agreement from the MM community as this is
>> where the maintenance cost will be payed. So far I have not seen (m)any
>> acks by MM developers so aiming into the next merge window is more than
>> little rushed.
> 
> We tried other previously proposed approaches and all have their
> downsides without making maintenance much easier. Your position is
> understandable and I think it's fair. Let's see if others see more
> benefit than cost here.

Would it make sense to discuss that at LSF/MM once again, especially 
covering why proposed alternatives did not work out? LSF/MM is not "too 
far" away (May).

I recall that the last LSF/MM session on this topic was a bit 
unfortunate (IMHO not as productive as it could have been). Maybe we can 
finally reach a consensus on this.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists