Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0baa2b26-a41b-acab-b75d-72ec241f5151@virtuozzo.com>
 <60df0efd-f458-a13c-7c89-749bdab21d1d@virtuozzo.com> <YWWrai/ChIgycgCo@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CALvZod7LpEY98r=pD-k=WbOT-z=Ux16Mfmv3s7PDtJg6=ZStgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YWXS09ZBhZSy6FQQ@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CALvZod6K6UXxDrkHp=mVDV7O-fAtmRkgMDngPazBhcyDUNxy_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <YWcUbXfBsbNzYIad@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <YWcUbXfBsbNzYIad@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:30:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod5V_NK_mVFY7ik6wSWPxqSqRrhzJkdtuyQjzMB-0yjHGw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm v3] memcg: enable memory accounting in __alloc_pages_bulk
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel@openvz.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:16 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
[...]
> > > If this is really that complicated (I haven't tried) then it would be
> > > much more simple to completely skip the bulk allocator for __GFP_ACCOUNT
> > > rather than add a tricky code. The bulk allocator is meant to be used
> > > for ultra hot paths and memcg charging along with the reclaim doesn't
> > > really fit into that model anyway. Or are there any actual users who
> > > really need bulk allocator optimization and also need memcg accounting?
> >
> > Bulk allocator is being used for vmalloc and we have several
> > kvmalloc() with __GFP_ACCOUNT allocations.
>
> Do we really need to use bulk allocator for these allocations?
> Bulk allocator is an bypass of the page allocator for performance reason
> and I can see why that can be useful but considering that the charging
> path can imply some heavy lifting is all the code churn to make bulk
> allocator memcg aware really worth it? Why cannot we simply skip over
> bulk allocator for __GFP_ACCOUNT. That would be a trivial fix.
> --

Actually that might be the simplest solution and I agree to skip bulk
allocator for __GFP_ACCOUNT allocations.