Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-64440-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:09:11 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.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, 
	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: <2hphuyx2dnqsj3hnzyifp5yqn2hpgfjuhfu635dzgofr5mst27@4a5dixtcuxyi>
References: <20240212213922.783301-1-surenb@google.com>
 <Zctfa2DvmlTYSfe8@tiehlicka>
 <CAJuCfpEsWfZnpL1vUB2C=cxRi_WxhxyvgGhUg7WdAxLEqy6oSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9e14adec-2842-458d-8a58-af6a2d18d823@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <9e14adec-2842-458d-8a58-af6a2d18d823@redhat.com>

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@suse.com> 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.