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, 3 May 2023 12:24:44 +0200
From:   Petr =?UTF-8?B?VGVzYcWZw61r?= <petr@tesarici.cz>
To:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        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,
        ldufour@linux.ibm.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,
        david@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, 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 00/40] Memory allocation profiling
Message-ID: <20230503122444.49f18657@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
In-Reply-To: <ZFIvY5p1UAXxHw9s@moria.home.lan>
References: <20230501165450.15352-1-surenb@google.com>
        <ZFIMaflxeHS3uR/A@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <ZFIOfb6/jHwLqg6M@moria.home.lan>
        <ZFISlX+mSx4QJDK6@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <20230503115051.30b8a97f@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
        <ZFIvY5p1UAXxHw9s@moria.home.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 3 May 2023 05:54:43 -0400
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:

> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 11:50:51AM +0200, Petr Tesa=C5=99=C3=ADk wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 May 2023 09:51:49 +0200
> > Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >  =20
> > > On Wed 03-05-23 03:34:21, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > >[...] =20
> > > > We've made this as clean and simple as posssible: a single new macro
> > > > invocation per allocation function, no calling convention changes (=
that
> > > > would indeed have been a lot of churn!)   =20
> > >=20
> > > That doesn't really make the concern any less relevant. I believe you
> > > and Suren have made a great effort to reduce the churn as much as
> > > possible but looking at the diffstat the code changes are clearly the=
re
> > > and you have to convince the rest of the community that this maintena=
nce
> > > overhead is really worth it. =20
> >=20
> > I believe this is the crucial point.
> >=20
> > I have my own concerns about the use of preprocessor macros, which goes
> > against the basic idea of a code tagging framework (patch 13/40).
> > AFAICS the CODE_TAG_INIT macro must be expanded on the same source code
> > line as the tagged code, which makes it hard to use without further
> > macros (unless you want to make the source code unreadable beyond
> > imagination). That's why all allocation functions must be converted to
> > macros.
> >=20
> > If anyone ever wants to use this code tagging framework for something
> > else, they will also have to convert relevant functions to macros,
> > slowly changing the kernel to a minefield where local identifiers,
> > struct, union and enum tags, field names and labels must avoid name
> > conflict with a tagged function. For now, I have to remember that
> > alloc_pages is forbidden, but the list may grow. =20
>=20
> No, we've got other code tagging applications (that have already been
> posted!) and they don't "convert functions to macros" in the way this
> patchset does - they do introduce new macros, but as new identifiers,
> which we do all the time.

Yes, new all-lowercase macros which do not expand to a single
identifier are still added under include/linux. It's unfortunate IMO,
but it's a fact of life. You have a point here.

> This was simply the least churny way to hook memory allocations.

This is a bold statement. You certainly know what you plan to do, but
other people keep coming up with ideas... Like, anyone would like to
tag semaphore use: up() and down()?

Don't get me wrong. I can see how the benefits of code tagging, and I
agree that my concerns are not very strong. I just want that the
consequences are understood and accepted, and they don't take us by
surprise.

Petr T