[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Code tagging framework and applications
- To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 10:29:37 -0400
- Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mhocko@xxxxxxxx, vbabka@xxxxxxx, hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx, roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx, dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx, willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, liam.howlett@xxxxxxxxxx, void@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxxx, ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, peterx@xxxxxxxxxx, david@xxxxxxxxxx, axboe@xxxxxxxxx, mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx, masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx, nathan@xxxxxxxxxx, changbin.du@xxxxxxxxx, ytcoode@xxxxxxxxx, vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx, dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx, rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx, bsegall@xxxxxxxxxx, bristot@xxxxxxxxxx, vschneid@xxxxxxxxxx, cl@xxxxxxxxx, penberg@xxxxxxxxxx, iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx, 42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx, glider@xxxxxxxxxx, elver@xxxxxxxxxx, dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx, shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx, songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, arnd@xxxxxxxx, jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx, rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx, minchan@xxxxxxxxxx, kaleshsingh@xxxxxxxxxx, kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kasan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, io-uring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-bcache@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-modules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 01 Sep 2022 14:29:51 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 09:00:17AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:19:48AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > It's also unclear *who* would enable this. It looks like it would mostly
> > have value during the development stage of an embedded platform to track
> > kernel memory usage on a per-application basis in an environment where it
> > may be difficult to setup tracing and tracking. Would it ever be enabled
> > in production?
>
> Afaict this is developer only; it is all unconditional code.
>
> > Would a distribution ever enable this?
>
> I would sincerely hope not. Because:
>
> > If it's enabled, any overhead cannot be disabled/enabled at run or
> > boot time so anyone enabling this would carry the cost without never
> > necessarily consuming the data.
>
> this.
We could make it a boot parameter, with the alternatives infrastructure - with a
bit of refactoring there'd be a single function call to nop out, and then we
could also drop the elf sections as well, so that when built in but disabled the
overhead would be practically nil.
|
