linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next v6 0/2] Make memory reclamation measurable

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 08:44:08 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@...o.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mhiramat@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, opensource.kernel@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v6 0/2] Make memory reclamation measurable

On Wed 21-02-24 11:00:53, Bixuan Cui wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2024/2/21 10:22, Steven Rostedt 写道:
> > It's up to the memory management folks to decide on this. -- Steve
> Noted with thanks.

It would be really helpful to have more details on why we need those
trace points.

It is my understanding that you would like to have a more fine grained
numbers for the time duration of different parts of the reclaim process.
I can imagine this could be useful in some cases but is it useful enough
and for a wider variety of workloads? Is that worth a dedicated static
tracepoints? Why an add-hoc dynamic tracepoints or BPF for a very
special situation is not sufficient?

In other words, tell us more about the usecases and why is this
generally useful.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs