Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-65376-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:01:14 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, 
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, 
	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, 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, 
	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: <ifz44lao4dbvvpzt7zha3ho7xnddcdxgp4fkeacqleu5lo43bn@f3dbrmcuticz>
References: <20240212213922.783301-1-surenb@google.com>
 <20240214062020.GA989328@cmpxchg.org>
 <ZczSSZOWMlqfvDg8@tiehlicka>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZczSSZOWMlqfvDg8@tiehlicka>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 03:46:33PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 14-02-24 01:20:20, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> [...]
> > I agree we should discuss how the annotations are implemented on a
> > technical basis, but my take is that we need something like this.
> 
> I do not think there is any disagreement on usefulness of a better
> memory allocation tracking. At least for me the primary problem is the
> implementation. At LFSMM last year we have heard that existing tracing
> infrastructure hasn't really been explored much. Cover letter doesn't
> really talk much about those alternatives so it is really hard to
> evaluate whether the proposed solution is indeed our best way to
> approach this.

Michal, we covered this before.

To do this with tracing you'd have to build up data structures
separately, in userspace, that would mirror the allocator's data
structures; you would have to track every single allocation so that you
could match up the free event to the place it was allocated.

Even if it could be built, which I doubt, it'd be completely non viable
because the performance would be terrible.

Like I said, we covered all this before; if you're going to spend so
much time on these threads you really should be making a better attempt
at keeping up with what's been talked about.