On Thu 01-09-22 11:18:19, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 10:38, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 01-09-22 10:24:58, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:42AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/lib/stackdepot.c b/lib/stackdepot.c
> > > > index 5ca0d086ef4a..aeb59d3557e2 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/stackdepot.c
> > > > +++ b/lib/stackdepot.c
> > > > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ struct stack_record {
> > > > u32 hash; /* Hash in the hastable */
> > > > u32 size; /* Number of frames in the stack */
> > > > union handle_parts handle;
> > > > + refcount_t count; /* Number of the same repeated stacks */
> > >
> > > This will increase stack_record size for every user, even if they don't
> > > care about the count.
> >
> > Couldn't this be used for garbage collection?
>
> Only if we can precisely figure out at which point a stack is no
> longer going to be needed.
>
> But more realistically, stack depot was designed to be simple. Right
> now it can allocate new stacks (from an internal pool), but giving the
> memory back to that pool isn't supported. Doing garbage collection
> would effectively be a redesign of stack depot.
Fair argument.
> And for the purpose
> for which stack depot was designed (debugging tools), memory has never
> been an issue (note that stack depot also has a fixed upper bound on
> memory usage).
Is the increased size really a blocker then? I see how it sucks to
maintain a counter when it is not used by anything but page_owner but
storing that counte externally would just add more complexity AFAICS
(more allocations, more tracking etc.).
Maybe the counter can be conditional on the page_owner which would add
some complexity as well (variable size structure) but at least the
external allocation stuff could be avoided.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
