On Thu 08-09-22 03:29:50, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 09:12:45AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Then you have probably missed a huge part of my emails. Please > > re-read. If those arguments are not clear, feel free to ask for > > clarification. Reducing the whole my reasoning and objections to the > > sentence above and calling that vapid and lazy is not only unfair but > > also disrespectful. > > What, where you complained about slab's page allocations showing up in the > profile instead of slab, and I pointed out to you that actually each and every > slab call is instrumented, and you're just seeing some double counting (that > we > will no doubt fix?) > > Or when you complained about allocation sites where it should actually be the > caller that should be instrumented, and I pointed out that it'd be quite easy > to > simply change that code to use _kmalloc() and slab_tag_add() directly, if it > becomes an issue. > > Of course, if we got that far, we'd have this code to thank for telling us > where > to look! > > Did I miss anything?
Feel free to reponse to specific arguments as I wrote them. I won't repeat them again. Sure we can discuss how important/relevant those are. And that _can_ be a productive discussion. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
