Re: [PATCH v3 00/35] Memory allocation profiling

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:52 AM Kent Overstreet
<kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 08:55:48AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 14:59:11 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > > If you think you can easily achieve what Michal requested without all that,
> > > > > good.
> > > >
> > > > He requested something?
> > >
> > > Yes, a cleaner instrumentation. Unfortunately the cleanest one is not
> > > possible until the compiler feature is developed and deployed. And it
> > > still would require changes to the headers, so don't think it's worth
> > > delaying the feature for years.
> >
> > Can we please be told much more about this compiler feature?
> > Description of what it is, what it does, how it will affect this kernel
> > feature, etc.
> >
> > Who is developing it and when can we expect it to become available?
> >
> > Will we be able to migrate to it without back-compatibility concerns?
> > (I think "you need quite recent gcc for memory profiling" is
> > reasonable).
> >
> >
> >
> > Because: if the maintainability issues which Michel describes will be
> > significantly addressed with the gcc support then we're kinda reviewing
> > the wrong patchset.  Yes, it may be a maintenance burden initially, but
> > at some (yet to be revealed) time in the future, this will be addressed
> > with the gcc support?
> Even if we had compiler magic, after considering it more I don't think
> the patchset would be improved by it - I would still prefer to stick
> with the macro approach.
> There's also a lot of unresolved questions about whether the compiler
> approach would even end being what we need; we need macro expansion to
> happen in the caller of the allocation function

For the record, that's what this attribute will be doing. So it should
cover our usecase.

> , and that's another
> level of hooking that I don't think the compiler people are even
> considering yet, since cpp runs before the main part of the compiler; if
> C macros worked and were implemented more like Rust macros I'm sure it
> could be done - in fact, I think this could all be done in Rust
> _without_ any new compiler support - but in C, this is a lot to ask.
> Let's look at the instrumentation again. There's two steps:
> - Renaming the original function to _noprof
> - Adding a hooked version of the original function.
> We need to do the renaming regardless of what approach we take in order
> to correctly handle allocations that happen inside the context of an
> existing alloc tag hook but should not be accounted to the outer
> context; we do that by selecting the alloc_foo() or alloc_foo_noprof()
> version as appropriate.
> It's important to get this right; consider slab object extension
> vectors or the slab allocator allocating pages from the page allocator.
> Second step, adding a hooked version of the original function. We do
> that with
> #define alloc_foo(...) alloc_hooks(alloc_foo_noprof(__VA_ARGS__))
> That's pretty clean, if you ask me. The only way to make it more succint
> be if it were possible for a C macro to define a new macro, then it
> could be just
> alloc_fn(alloc_foo);
> But honestly, the former is probably preferable anyways from a ctags/cscope POV.

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux