On 01.09.22 16:23, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:05:03AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 31.08.22 21:01, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:47:32PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >>>> On Wed 31-08-22 11:19:48, Mel Gorman wrote: >>>>> Whatever asking for an explanation as to why equivalent functionality >>>>> cannot not be created from ftrace/kprobe/eBPF/whatever is reasonable. >>>> >>>> Fully agreed and this is especially true for a change this size >>>> 77 files changed, 3406 insertions(+), 703 deletions(-) >>> >>> In the case of memory allocation accounting, you flat cannot do this with ftrace >>> - you could maybe do a janky version that isn't fully accurate, much slower, >>> more complicated for the developer to understand and debug and more complicated >>> for the end user. >>> >>> But please, I invite anyone who's actually been doing this with ftrace to >>> demonstrate otherwise. >>> >>> Ftrace just isn't the right tool for the job here - we're talking about adding >>> per callsite accounting to some of the fastest fast paths in the kernel. >>> >>> And the size of the changes for memory allocation accounting are much more >>> reasonable: >>> 33 files changed, 623 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) >>> >>> The code tagging library should exist anyways, it's been open coded half a dozen >>> times in the kernel already. >> >> Hi Kent, >> >> independent of the other discussions, if it's open coded already, does >> it make sense to factor that already-open-coded part out independently >> of the remainder of the full series here? > > It's discussed in the cover letter, that is exactly how the patch series is > structured. Skimming over the patches (that I was CCed on) and skimming over the cover letter, I got the impression that everything after patch 7 is introducing something new instead of refactoring something out. > >> [I didn't immediately spot if this series also attempts already to >> replace that open-coded part] > > Uh huh. > > Honestly, some days it feels like lkml is just as bad as slashdot, with people > wanting to get in their two cents without actually reading... ... and of course you had to reply like that. I should just have learned from my last upstream experience with you and kept you on my spam list. Thanks, bye -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
