Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Date:   Thu, 23 Nov 2023 11:45:10 +0300
From:   Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@salutedevices.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
CC:     <rostedt@goodmis.org>, <mhiramat@kernel.org>, <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        <mhocko@kernel.org>, <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        <muchun.song@linux.dev>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        <kernel@sberdevices.ru>, <rockosov@gmail.com>,
        <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: memcg: print out cgroup name in the memcg
 tracepoints
Message-ID: <20231123084510.wwnkjyrrbp5vltkg@CAB-WSD-L081021>
References: <20231122100156.6568-1-ddrokosov@salutedevices.com>
 <20231122100156.6568-2-ddrokosov@salutedevices.com>
 <20231123072126.jpukmc6rqmzckdw2@google.com>
 <20231123080334.5owfpg7zl4nzeh4t@CAB-WSD-L081021>
 <20231123081547.7fbxd4ts3qohrioq@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231123081547.7fbxd4ts3qohrioq@google.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20220415
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 08:15:47AM +0000, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:03:34AM +0300, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> [...]
> > > > +		cgroup_name(memcg->css.cgroup,
> > > > +			__entry->name,
> > > > +			sizeof(__entry->name));
> > > 
> > > Any reason not to use cgroup_ino? cgroup_name may conflict and be
> > > ambiguous.
> > 
> > I actually didn't consider it, as the cgroup name serves as a clear tag
> > for filtering the appropriate cgroup in the entire trace file. However,
> > you are correct that there might be conflicts with cgroup names.
> > Therefore, it might be better to display both tags: ino and name. What
> > do you think on this?
> > 
> 
> I can see putting cgroup name can avoid pre or post processing, so
> putting both are fine. Though keep in mind that cgroup_name acquires a
> lock which may impact the applications running on the system.

Are you talking about kernfs_rename_lock? Yes, it's acquired each
time... Unfortunatelly, I don't know a way to save cgroup_name one time
somehow...

-- 
Thank you,
Dmitry