Re: [PATCH v3 00/35] Memory allocation profiling

David Hildenbrand
2024-02-13T22:17:39Z

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@suse.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)

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb