Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1fd21e25-b095-e055-fc2e-abda640a0575@openvz.org>
In-Reply-To: <1fd21e25-b095-e055-fc2e-abda640a0575@openvz.org>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 May 2022 12:10:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod6wmxxigoLVg8Q+upqOkyoh+nPuVT0yx_XTbu8RXYYFgA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: add ACCOUNT flag for allocations from marked
 slab caches
To:     Vasily Averin <vvs@openvz.org>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, kernel@openvz.org,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:53 AM Vasily Averin <vvs@openvz.org> wrote:
>
> Slab caches marked with SLAB_ACCOUNT force accounting for every
> allocation from this cache even if __GFP_ACCOUNT flag is not passed.
> Unfortunately, at the moment this flag is not visible in ftrace output,
> and this makes it difficult to analyze the accounted allocations.
>
> This patch adds the __GFP_ACCOUNT flag for allocations from slab caches
> marked with SLAB_ACCOUNT to the ftrace output.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@openvz.org>
> ---
>  mm/slab.c | 3 +++
>  mm/slub.c | 3 +++
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index 0edb474edef1..4c3da8dfcbdb 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -3492,6 +3492,9 @@ void *__kmem_cache_alloc_lru(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct list_lru *lru,

What about kmem_cache_alloc_node()?

>  {
>         void *ret = slab_alloc(cachep, lru, flags, cachep->object_size, _RET_IP_);
>
> +       if (cachep->flags & SLAB_ACCOUNT)

Should this 'if' be unlikely() or should we trace cachep->flags
explicitly to avoid this branch altogether?

> +               flags |= __GFP_ACCOUNT;
> +
>         trace_kmem_cache_alloc(_RET_IP_, ret,
>                                cachep->object_size, cachep->size, flags);
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index ed5c2c03a47a..670bbfef9e49 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -3231,6 +3231,9 @@ void *__kmem_cache_alloc_lru(struct kmem_cache *s, struct list_lru *lru,
>  {
>         void *ret = slab_alloc(s, lru, gfpflags, _RET_IP_, s->object_size);
>
> +       if (s->flags & SLAB_ACCOUNT)
> +               gfpflags |= __GFP_ACCOUNT;
> +
>         trace_kmem_cache_alloc(_RET_IP_, ret, s->object_size,
>                                 s->size, gfpflags);
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>