From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@gmail.com>
Cc: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@me.com>,
cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
vbabka@suse.cz, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: append __GFP_COMP flag for trace_malloc
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:36:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210427033632.GW235567@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEVVKH_wZJvNAgFEF1OxThxN3AC4mopZ+Pu2GC0Hn_-2JOfC5Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:29:32AM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:54 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:43:20AM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> > > From: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > When calling kmalloc_order, the flags should include __GFP_COMP here,
> > > so that trace_malloc can trace the precise flags.
> >
> > I suppose that depends on your point of view.
> Correct.
>
> Should we report the
> > flags used by the caller, or the flags that we used to allocate memory?
> > And why does it matter?
> When I capture kmem:kmalloc events on my env with perf:
> (perf record -p my_pid -e kmem:kmalloc)
> I got the result below:
> 0.08% call_site=ffffffff851d0cb0 ptr=0xffff8c04a4ca0000
> bytes_req=10176 bytes_alloc=16384
> gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
Hmm ... if you have a lot of allocations about this size, that would
argue in favour of adding a kmem_cache of 10880 [*] bytes. That way,
we'd get 3 allocations per 32kB instead of 2.
[*] 32768 / 3, rounded down to a 64 byte cacheline
But I don't understand why this confused you. Your caller at
ffffffff851d0cb0 didn't specify __GFP_COMP. I'd be more confused if
this did report __GFP_COMP.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-27 3:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-27 2:43 [PATCH] mm: append __GFP_COMP flag for trace_malloc Xiongwei Song
2021-04-27 2:53 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-27 3:29 ` Xiongwei Song
2021-04-27 3:36 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2021-04-27 4:11 ` Xiongwei Song
2021-04-27 5:30 ` Xiongwei Song
2021-04-27 11:25 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-28 3:05 ` Xiongwei Song
2021-05-03 12:35 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-07 5:41 ` Xiongwei Song
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210427033632.GW235567@casper.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=sxwjean@gmail.com \
--cc=sxwjean@me.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).