[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ifz44lao4dbvvpzt7zha3ho7xnddcdxgp4fkeacqleu5lo43bn@f3dbrmcuticz>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:01:14 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
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, 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,
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 Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 03:46:33PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 14-02-24 01:20:20, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> [...]
> > I agree we should discuss how the annotations are implemented on a
> > technical basis, but my take is that we need something like this.
>
> I do not think there is any disagreement on usefulness of a better
> memory allocation tracking. At least for me the primary problem is the
> implementation. At LFSMM last year we have heard that existing tracing
> infrastructure hasn't really been explored much. Cover letter doesn't
> really talk much about those alternatives so it is really hard to
> evaluate whether the proposed solution is indeed our best way to
> approach this.
Michal, we covered this before.
To do this with tracing you'd have to build up data structures
separately, in userspace, that would mirror the allocator's data
structures; you would have to track every single allocation so that you
could match up the free event to the place it was allocated.
Even if it could be built, which I doubt, it'd be completely non viable
because the performance would be terrible.
Like I said, we covered all this before; if you're going to spend so
much time on these threads you really should be making a better attempt
at keeping up with what's been talked about.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists