Hello, On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 01:14:57PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 1:00 PM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Another related question. So, the reason for macro'ing stuff is needed is > > because you want to print the line directly from kernel, right? > > The main reason is because we want to inject a code tag at the > location of the call. If we have a code tag injected at every > allocation call, then finding the allocation counter (code tag) to > operate takes no time. > > > Is that > > really necessary? Values from __builtin_return_address() can easily be > > printed out as function+offset from kernel which already gives most of the > > necessary information for triaging and mapping that back to source line from > > userspace isn't difficult. Wouldn't using __builtin_return_address() make > > the whole thing a lot simpler? > > If we do that we have to associate that address with the allocation > counter at runtime on the first allocation and look it up on all > following allocations. That introduces the overhead which we are > trying to avoid by using macros. I see. I'm a bit skeptical about the performance angle given that the hot path can be probably made really cheap even with lookups. In most cases, it's just gonna be an extra pointer deref and a few more arithmetics. That can show up in microbenchmarks but it's not gonna be much. The benefit of going that route would be the tracking thing being mostly self contained. That said, it's nice to not have to worry about allocating tracking slots and managing hash table, so no strong opinion. Thanks. -- tejun
