On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 12:09 PM Tejun Heo [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:58:51AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 02:56:44PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:40:07AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:

quoted

quoted

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?

IIUC, by single depth you mean no call stack capturing?
If so, that's the idea behind the context capture feature so that we
can enable it on specific allocations only after we determine there is
something interesting there. So, with low-cost persistent tracking we
can determine the suspects and then pay some more to investigate those
suspects in more detail.

quoted

quoted

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.

debugfs seemed like a natural choice for such information. If another
interface is more appropriate I'm happy to explore that.

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

Do you mean that we could display allocation context in
debugfs/allocations file (for the allocations which we explicitly
enabled context capturing)?

Thanks.

--
tejun