Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling

[Tejun Heo]

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:58:51AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 02:56:44PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:40:07AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > Yeah, easy / default visibility argument does make sense to me.
> > > 
> > > So, a bit of addition here. If this is the thrust, the debugfs part seems
> > > rather redundant, right? That's trivially obtainable with tracing / bpf and
> > > in a more flexible and performant manner. Also, are we happy with recording
> > > just single depth for persistent tracking?
> > 
> > Not sure what you're envisioning?
> > 
> > I'd consider the debugfs interface pretty integral; it's much more
> > discoverable for users, and it's hardly any code out of the whole
> > patchset.
> 
> You can do the same thing with a bpftrace one liner tho. That's rather
> difficult to beat.

Ah, shit, I'm an idiot. Sorry. I thought allocations was under /proc and
allocations.ctx under debugfs. I meant allocations.ctx is redundant.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun