lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 00/35] Memory allocation profiling
    On Wed 14-02-24 10:01:14, Kent Overstreet wrote:
    > 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.

    It is a good practice to summarize previous discussions in the cover
    letter. Especially when there are different approaches discussed over a
    longer time period or when the topic is controversial.

    I do not see anything like that here. Neither for the existing tracing
    infrastructure, page owner nor performance concerns discussed before
    etc. Look, I do not want to nit pick or insist on formalisms but having
    those data points layed out would make any further discussion much more
    smooth.

    --
    Michal Hocko
    SUSE Labs

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2024-05-27 15:02    [W:2.982 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site