From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A53C77B7F for ; Mon, 1 May 2023 18:08:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231222AbjEASI1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 May 2023 14:08:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45832 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231372AbjEASIZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 May 2023 14:08:25 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7573F1984 for ; Mon, 1 May 2023 11:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-2f833bda191so1584295f8f.1 for ; Mon, 01 May 2023 11:08:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20221208; t=1682964501; x=1685556501; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=+2lYHhqlJD16G2HYpsFMb3ZFL7Kq76WjunB2OGwz3cs=; b=InnNvCbyWRIxKxFGHEw18GDFvAR07SJg7UsaQSzayd856NvZvHy/7D82OiVunxTwOQ iI4bPEnaVC8DKfBD9q2mpFU/D2+4QZOsePkMvk/nKecGEkR7ieMp18RUohlow/ONsuPb fRpdmKiy/hCz/JHzVWz2n5Mg5OcWXlB55bYJJxXjQz7D5uG5SID6uaCO/Kks5xdfPjJJ it9fnMSSuNm2JWdg5Tcm2D1rTGbvS4aDpWOvTKMsD+KeIoUScC3se5ywU/XKx17SosJd CH4HSE+fdc45RYf+DKFB/2hLNASZoyYfq4ehjOUiQfqHoIRcizKtgl3mADdezSKqh+u9 RU9w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682964501; x=1685556501; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+2lYHhqlJD16G2HYpsFMb3ZFL7Kq76WjunB2OGwz3cs=; b=L9abWSnYcb8xh+rXBgu750paEM1S5zBOpQ1ZvGmIDahoWhYS2/hrKn7zBArSnwZBNJ oSAUJqJEBpE7c5t9YNRds74kXSvqsX9Fo726uHmqiSGXWA3Ejh2cp6IahhEnZCIBLO9A FQsvXblMpn6czIXShlKqeaYPxXpP9pvCGC1EWruTuk42wzj4qTtPxTyrlj+invIujc3F TAUQpOb5s+OGCO1yxUlVq1IALmcbiGxiTFvyNgA5b/wZsoUx1IKA7f8GdMcet1iFRyBI 27Jmqo5Yau+PaDjoBp7e1piKY3NqSErQAtOKgz+cJSravVJBDmfrj+A4zv3BD2STsxY3 EUZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDz9E2BDbte4L3m4bB637KuM1DPpLgA5+LVQD1rgpXVJy0OKMrHl 4KEvcdGNMclMpUOceQp8cu8fDtPiPULmBxltCLKYRg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5amJjA/6tq+0x964OebbbLQ/pHCZFbXYS1+6FrTMuusEGNpiFnDiBKAeRF77HbwZnod13qqDRv0TRCNeDlvRc= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6351:0:b0:306:2b9e:2a8c with SMTP id b17-20020a5d6351000000b003062b9e2a8cmr3336094wrw.11.1682964500617; Mon, 01 May 2023 11:08:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230501165450.15352-1-surenb@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Suren Baghdasaryan Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 11:08:05 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling To: Roman Gushchin Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, kent.overstreet@linux.dev, mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@suse.de, dave@stgolabs.net, willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, corbet@lwn.net, void@manifault.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, ldufour@linux.ibm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, mcgrof@kernel.org, masahiroy@kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org, dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, rppt@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, yosryahmed@google.com, yuzhao@google.com, dhowells@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, ebiggers@google.com, ytcoode@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, glider@google.com, elver@google.com, dvyukov@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, songmuchun@bytedance.com, jbaron@akamai.com, rientjes@google.com, minchan@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 10:47=E2=80=AFAM Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 09:54:10AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > Performance overhead: > > To evaluate performance we implemented an in-kernel test executing > > multiple get_free_page/free_page and kmalloc/kfree calls with allocatio= n > > sizes growing from 8 to 240 bytes with CPU frequency set to max and CPU > > affinity set to a specific CPU to minimize the noise. Below is performa= nce > > comparison between the baseline kernel, profiling when enabled, profili= ng > > when disabled (nomem_profiling=3Dy) and (for comparison purposes) basel= ine > > with CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM enabled and allocations using __GFP_ACCOUNT: > > > > kmalloc pgalloc > > Baseline (6.3-rc7) 9.200s 31.050s > > profiling disabled 9.800 (+6.52%) 32.600 (+4.99%) > > profiling enabled 12.500 (+35.87%) 39.010 (+25.60%) > > memcg_kmem enabled 41.400 (+350.00%) 70.600 (+127.38%) > > Hm, this makes me think we have a regression with memcg_kmem in one of > the recent releases. When I measured it a couple of years ago, the overhe= ad > was definitely within 100%. > > Do you understand what makes the your profiling drastically faster than k= mem? I haven't profiled or looked into kmem overhead closely but I can do that. I just wanted to see how the overhead compares with the existing accounting mechanisms. For kmalloc, the overhead is low because after we create the vector of slab_ext objects (which is the same as what memcg_kmem does), memory profiling just increments a lazy counter (which in many cases would be a per-cpu counter). memcg_kmem operates on cgroup hierarchy with additional overhead associated with that. I'm guessing that's the reason for the big difference between these mechanisms but, I didn't look into the details to understand memcg_kmem performance. > > Thanks!