Re: [PATCH 00/15] stackdepot: allow evicting stack traces

[Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 4:48 AM 'Kuan-Ying Lee (李冠穎)' via kasan-dev
<kasan-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > > 3. With the number of stackdepot users increasing, each having
> > > their
> > > distinct set of stacks from others, would it make sense to create
> > > separate
> > > "storage instance" for each user instead of putting everything in a
> > > single
> > > shared one?
> >
> > This shouldn't be hard to implement. However, do you see any
> > particular use cases for this?
> >
> > One thing that comes to mind is that the users will then be able to
> > create/destroy stack depot instances when required. But I don't know
> > if any of the users need this: so far they all seem to require stack
> > depot throughout the whole lifetime of the system.
> >
> Maybe we can use evition in page_owner and slub_debug
> (SLAB_STORE_USER).
>
> After we update page_owner->handle, we could evict the previous
> handle?

We can definitely adapt more users to the new API. My comment was
related to the suggestion of splitting stack depot storages for
different users.

But actually I have a response to my question about the split: if each
user has a separate stack depot storage instance, they can set the
maximum stack trace size as they desire, and thus save up on memory.