On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 03:09:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:15:39 -0400 Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 01:31:47PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:36:27 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > We're introducing alloc tagging, which tracks memory allocations by > > > > callsite. Converting alloc_inode_sb() to a macro means allocations will > > > > be tracked by its caller, which is a bit more useful. > > > > > > I'd have thought that there would be many similar > > > inlines-which-allocate-memory. Such as, I dunno, jbd2_alloc_inode(). > > > Do we have to go converting things to macros as people report > > > misleading or less useful results, or is there some more general > > > solution to this? > > > > No, this is just what we have to do. > > Well, this is something we strike in other contexts - kallsyms gives us > an inlined function and it's rarely what we wanted. > > I think kallsyms has all the data which is needed to fix this - how > hard can it be to figure out that a particular function address lies > within an outer function? I haven't looked... This is different, though - even if a function is inlined in multiple places there's only going to be one instance of a static var defined within that function.
