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;
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 15:38:17 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, corbet@lwn.net,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] mm: add new syscall
 pidfd_set_mempolicy().
Message-ID: <Y3uNWbPmwHtytKzY@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20221111084051.2121029-1-hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
 <20221111112732.30e1696bcd0d5b711c188a9a@linux-foundation.org>
 <a44f794e-fe60-e261-3631-9107822d5c36@bytedance.com>
 <Y3IqLzvduM6HqPJV@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <3a3b4f5b-14d1-27d8-7727-cf23da90988f@bytedance.com>
 <Y3KFFfMFE55lVdNZ@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <82c9c89c-aee2-08a3-e562-359631bb0137@bytedance.com>
 <0bd0b744-3d97-b4c3-a4fb-6040f8f8024a@bytedance.com>
 <Y3T6SqZvAmSG5I6W@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <6433156f-34a8-400f-e282-91268b242279@bytedance.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6433156f-34a8-400f-e282-91268b242279@bytedance.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 17-11-22 15:19:20, Zhongkun He wrote:
> Hi Michal, thanks for your replay.
> 
> > 
> > It would be better to add the patch that has been tested.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > 
> > One way to deal with that would be to use a similar model as css_tryget
> 
> Percpu_ref is a good way to  reduce memory footprint in fast path.But it
> has the potential to make mempolicy heavy. the sizeof mempolicy is 32
> bytes and it may not have a long life time, which duplicated from the
> parent in fork().If we modify atomic_t to percpu_ref, the efficiency of
> reading in fastpath will increase, the efficiency of creation and
> deletion will decrease, and the occupied space will increase
> significantly.I am not really sure it is worth it.
> 
> atomic_t; 4
> sizeof(percpu_ref + percpu_ref_data + cpus* unsigned long)
> 16+56+cpus*8

Yes the memory consumption is going to increase but the question is
whether this is something that is a real problem. Is it really common to
have many vmas with a dedicated policy?

What I am arguing here is that there are essentially 2 ways forward.
Either we continue to build up on top of the existing and arguably very
fragile code and make it even more subtle or follow a general pattern of
a proper reference counting (with usual tricks to reduce cache line
bouncing and similar issues). I do not really see why memory policies
should be any different and require very special treatment.

> > Btw. have you tried to profile those slowdowns to identify hotspots?
> > 
> > Thanks
> 
> Yes, it will degrade performance about 2%-%3 may because of the task_lock
> and  atomic operations on the reference count as shown
> in the previous email.
> 
> new hotspots in perf.
> 1.34%  [kernel]          [k] __mpol_put
> 0.53%  [kernel]          [k] _raw_spin_lock
> 0.44%  [kernel]          [k] get_task_policy

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs