Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] perf, bpf: Retain kernel executable code in memory to aid Intel PT tracing

From: Adrian Hunter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:24:35 +0200

On 11/02/19 10:18 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 09:54:01AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>
>> Which is not really a real use-case.
> ..
>>> perf analysis with PT becomes inaccurate and main goal
>>> of retaining accurate instruction info is not achieved.
>>
>> For the majority of real use-cases, yes it is.
> 
> In our fleet not a single server is using Intel PT, yet you're
> proposing to penalize all of them with shrinker-based JIT freeing?

I already responded to that.

> There is no negotiation here.

Apart from Peter and Ingo already having indicated a different approach is
preferred, why not? Shouldn't maintainers provide technical reasons.