Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-74253-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 08:44:08 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@vivo.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	mhiramat@kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, opensource.kernel@vivo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v6 0/2] Make memory reclamation measurable
Message-ID: <ZdWpyN_8Z6dvDQ48@tiehlicka>
References: <20240105013607.2868-1-cuibixuan@vivo.com>
 <fac8d079-100e-4b8d-9a35-db8219b28b51@vivo.com>
 <20240220212202.59ddc123@gandalf.local.home>
 <3d4f44ee-f533-446f-a9e6-7f58afc78d65@vivo.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <3d4f44ee-f533-446f-a9e6-7f58afc78d65@vivo.com>

On Wed 21-02-24 11:00:53, Bixuan Cui wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2024/2/21 10:22, Steven Rostedt 写道:
> > It's up to the memory management folks to decide on this. -- Steve
> Noted with thanks.

It would be really helpful to have more details on why we need those
trace points.

It is my understanding that you would like to have a more fine grained
numbers for the time duration of different parts of the reclaim process.
I can imagine this could be useful in some cases but is it useful enough
and for a wider variety of workloads? Is that worth a dedicated static
tracepoints? Why an add-hoc dynamic tracepoints or BPF for a very
special situation is not sufficient?

In other words, tell us more about the usecases and why is this
generally useful.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs