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

[Kent Overstreet]

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@xxxxxxxx> 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.