From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51232C48260 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 22:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C2C766B0092; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:50:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id BDE268D0019; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:50:22 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A7EA28D0001; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:50:22 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984C26B0092 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:50:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58694C0D34 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 22:50:22 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81788275884.21.AA26AF9 Received: from out-184.mta0.migadu.com (out-184.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.184]) by imf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABE91C001D for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 22:50:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf18.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=d6oZDfuz; spf=pass (imf18.hostedemail.com: domain of kent.overstreet@linux.dev designates 91.218.175.184 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kent.overstreet@linux.dev; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1707864620; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=jiv4lM5HdhNU9bAiRFQZPMt1GA0MoNC/u5JMEJbfz1E=; b=yTg0rm2BWOIZMGjuo7ubY2wLNkt/Z7uk5GVxZoycfULEdlrPEU43Snqgzgy7gDySp6Olw5 4CP8YqUFYK8kfRtvgAEaUJbEZNKtUrL+xRffu8GnnPvxGkQ5ZsdtGz8tZ6whGcl5PS0Gub n0Xwt4YzGxfR+xAGKcf1t2SQl/pHuQg= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1707864620; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=K1BNjb8g564Ataxns8alFbXAdRTGIhr73pdFKqxKUOoEK2HXIdnUOA0b4OEWxG5r3XmH4V 0i/fAWxrLLZ88gFByl3VzXsS75oTh7ZuWkQnvrgSwp3m+6maULyqXPEw+PZaPel9dXoGWb Yu+a/zh8NaMbA/buDOUpF7jsNbv51r0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf18.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=d6oZDfuz; spf=pass (imf18.hostedemail.com: domain of kent.overstreet@linux.dev designates 91.218.175.184 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kent.overstreet@linux.dev; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:50:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1707864618; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=jiv4lM5HdhNU9bAiRFQZPMt1GA0MoNC/u5JMEJbfz1E=; b=d6oZDfuzS9N5a1qMbAKQ6zykd9yi5/xuQTmJuP4NK+YG9v3rNyDZZwDU2xN8Y2FicoJDuR aO5Kuq9UCaA2KN9t39NpZ8EYZI34DD/+bkBS6+86bRfaQK36VndzqUyNd6byW8mhlIELi0 1iDpFn6Sx8ce8Gl7n1t1eE2XT/JFYxA= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Kent Overstreet To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, mgorman@suse.de, dave@stgolabs.net, willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, corbet@lwn.net, void@manifault.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, peterx@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, mcgrof@kernel.org, masahiroy@kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org, dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, rppt@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, yosryahmed@google.com, yuzhao@google.com, dhowells@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, vvvvvv@google.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, ebiggers@google.com, ytcoode@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, glider@google.com, elver@google.com, dvyukov@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, songmuchun@bytedance.com, jbaron@akamai.com, rientjes@google.com, minchan@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/35] Memory allocation profiling Message-ID: References: <20240212213922.783301-1-surenb@google.com> <9e14adec-2842-458d-8a58-af6a2d18d823@redhat.com> <2hphuyx2dnqsj3hnzyifp5yqn2hpgfjuhfu635dzgofr5mst27@4a5dixtcuxyi> <6a0f5d8b-9c67-43f6-b25e-2240171265be@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Stat-Signature: boeqncoax7babn9ajj4tfcwdup91xntw X-Rspamd-Server: rspam10 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5ABE91C001D X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1707864620-25624 X-HE-Meta: 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 ZfhnJF4N vy9SqhD/DMHeZlaluEyhQ1sP6jWUFOasL4PhppjUazCgCQka0HYCA/AtPI5Dw98oHqvVkocoZyY6whmJauuMmHyt5Z+ntCYKbiI3CbVGwPIMs5GgJpI40mxFdXittemqVBigqW52fOvLTBR/CW3fezF4AS4w8zfIRTUIPgMsouJodZ110xw5UMGRfGqssUDSmjZrxwHrNGJxmPnqxwt9HBeoaUNAJuAwcNL40m1VouGmhyOc= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:48:41PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 13.02.24 23:30, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:17 PM David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > > > 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 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) > > > > There will be a maintenance burden even with the cleanest proposed > > approach. > > Yes. > > > We worked hard to make the patchset as clean as possible and > > if benefits still don't outweigh the maintenance cost then we should > > probably stop trying. > > Indeed. > > > At LSF/MM I would rather discuss functonal > > issues/requirements/improvements than alternative approaches to > > instrument allocators. > > I'm happy to arrange a separate meeting with MM folks if that would > > help to progress on the cost/benefit decision. > Note that I am only proposing ways forward. > > If you think you can easily achieve what Michal requested without all that, > good. He requested something?