Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:50:02 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.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, 
	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 Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:48:41PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.02.24 23:30, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:17 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 13.02.24 23:09, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:04:58PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd rather not delay for more bikeshedding. Before agreeing to LSF I'd
> > > > need to see a serious proposl - what we had at the last LSF was people
> > > > jumping in with half baked alternative proposals that very much hadn't
> > > > been thought through, and I see no need to repeat that.
> > > > 
> > > > Like I mentioned, there's other work gated on this patchset; if people
> > > > want to hold this up for more discussion they better be putting forth
> > > > something to discuss.
> > > 
> > > I'm thinking of ways on how to achieve Michal's request: "as long as
> > > there is a wider agreement from the MM community". If we can achieve
> > > that without LSF, great! (a bi-weekly MM meeting might also be an option)
> > 
> > There will be a maintenance burden even with the cleanest proposed
> > approach.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > We worked hard to make the patchset as clean as possible and
> > if benefits still don't outweigh the maintenance cost then we should
> > probably stop trying.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> > At LSF/MM I would rather discuss functonal
> > issues/requirements/improvements than alternative approaches to
> > instrument allocators.
> > I'm happy to arrange a separate meeting with MM folks if that would
> > help to progress on the cost/benefit decision.
> Note that I am only proposing ways forward.
> 
> If you think you can easily achieve what Michal requested without all that,
> good.

He requested something?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists