Re: Memory allocation profiling warnings in memory bound systems

[Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>]

On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 11:31 AM Usama Arif <usamaarif642@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 19/05/2025 18:56, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:29 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 06:23:59PM +0100, Usama Arif wrote:
> >>> For when the value is inaccurate, it might be better to have the number
> >>> and [X] next to it to reflect its inaccurate? Maybe an inaccurate number
> >>> is better than no number?
> >>
> >> Right, it could be a large consumer with only a handful of individual
> >> objects missing from the tally due to these extreme corner cases.
> >
> > Ok, then "<value>?" might make more sense.
>
> Yeah I think that would be good as well.
> I guess as long as its loud enough for anyone looking at the profile
> to go and have a look at the documentation to see what it would mean.

Ok, I'll work on that but probably not until June 2nd. I have an
upcoming vacation and won't be able to post the change before it
starts. Hope this timeline works for you.

>