On Wed, 12 May 2021 16:33:50 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/10/21 6:46 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 18:34:34 +0200 glittao@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > >> Many stack traces are similar so there are many similar arrays. > >> Stackdepot saves each unique stack only once. > >> > >> Replace field addrs in struct track with depot_stack_handle_t handle. > >> Use stackdepot to save stack trace. > >> > >> The benefits are smaller memory overhead and possibility to aggregate > >> per-cache statistics in the future using the stackdepot handle > >> instead of matching stacks manually. > > > > Which tree was this prepared against? 5.12's kmem_obj_info() is > > significantly different from the version you were working on. > > It was based on -next at the time of submission, which contained patch in Paul's > tree that expands kmem_obj_info to print also free call stack [1] so that also > needs to be switched to stackdepot to work. OK, sorry, I should have checked. > > Please take a look, redo, retest and resend? Thanks. > > I expected [1] to be in 5.13-rc1, but as Paul explained to me, it's queued for > 5.14. So if we (Oliver) rebase on current -next, can you queue it in the section > of mmotm series that goes after -next? I grabbed this version and queued it after the linux-next patches, thanks.
