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

Michal Hocko
2024-02-14T16:02:30Z

On Wed 14-02-24 10:01:14, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> 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.

It is a good practice to summarize previous discussions in the cover
letter. Especially when there are different approaches discussed over a
longer time period or when the topic is controversial.

I do not see anything like that here. Neither for the existing tracing
infrastructure, page owner nor performance concerns discussed before
etc. Look, I do not want to nit pick or insist on formalisms but having
those data points layed out would make any further discussion much more
smooth.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs