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 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.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux