Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:47:32 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        roman.gushchin@linux.dev, dave@stgolabs.net, willy@infradead.org,
        liam.howlett@oracle.com, void@manifault.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        ldufour@linux.ibm.com, peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com,
        axboe@kernel.dk, mcgrof@kernel.org, masahiroy@kernel.org,
        nathan@kernel.org, changbin.du@intel.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, arnd@arndb.de, jbaron@akamai.com,
        rientjes@google.com, minchan@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com,
        kernel-team@android.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
        kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Code tagging framework and applications
Message-ID: <Yw88RFuBgc7yFYxA@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20220830214919.53220-1-surenb@google.com>
 <Yw8P8xZ4zqu121xL@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20220831084230.3ti3vitrzhzsu3fs@moria.home.lan>
 <20220831101948.f3etturccmp5ovkl@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220831101948.f3etturccmp5ovkl@suse.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 31-08-22 11:19:48, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 04:42:30AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 09:38:27AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 02:48:49PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > ===========================
> > > > Code tagging framework
> > > > ===========================
> > > > Code tag is a structure identifying a specific location in the source code
> > > > which is generated at compile time and can be embedded in an application-
> > > > specific structure. Several applications of code tagging are included in
> > > > this RFC, such as memory allocation tracking, dynamic fault injection,
> > > > latency tracking and improved error code reporting.
> > > > Basically, it takes the old trick of "define a special elf section for
> > > > objects of a given type so that we can iterate over them at runtime" and
> > > > creates a proper library for it.
> > > 
> > > I might be super dense this morning, but what!? I've skimmed through the
> > > set and I don't think I get it.
> > > 
> > > What does this provide that ftrace/kprobes don't already allow?
> > 
> > You're kidding, right?
> 
> It's a valid question. From the description, it main addition that would
> be hard to do with ftrace or probes is catching where an error code is
> returned. A secondary addition would be catching all historical state and
> not just state since the tracing started.
> 
> It's also unclear *who* would enable this. It looks like it would mostly
> have value during the development stage of an embedded platform to track
> kernel memory usage on a per-application basis in an environment where it
> may be difficult to setup tracing and tracking. Would it ever be enabled
> in production? Would a distribution ever enable this? If it's enabled, any
> overhead cannot be disabled/enabled at run or boot time so anyone enabling
> this would carry the cost without never necessarily consuming the data.
> 
> It might be an ease-of-use thing. Gathering the information from traces
> is tricky and would need combining multiple different elements and that
> is development effort but not impossible.
> 
> Whatever asking for an explanation as to why equivalent functionality
> cannot not be created from ftrace/kprobe/eBPF/whatever is reasonable.

Fully agreed and this is especially true for a change this size
77 files changed, 3406 insertions(+), 703 deletions(-)

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs