On 6/18/26 10:21, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 6/17/26 20:18, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: >> On 6/17/26 17:03, Shakeel Butt wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 01:11:16PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: >>>> >>>> Given that trace events can quickly become stable ABI [1], are we really >>>> sure we >>>> want to add this? >>> >>> Yes, I think so as this is useful to get insights into lru cache draining. >>> Trace events being stable or not is secondary IMHO. If in future we >>> rearchitect >>> the lru page handling where there is no cache draining anymore, we can make >>> these a noops. >> >> Yeah and I don't recall ever that a change to a mm tracepoint would ever >> break someone who'd complain and we'd have to revert it. > Really? :) > > Read the context of the link I posted once more.
Ah, I see. I've only read the single mail from Steven that referred to the old powertop breakage and didn't notice the context. But I don't think these worries should stop us from adding easily usable tracepoints.
