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: <20230501165450.15352-1-surenb@google.com> <ZFIMaflxeHS3uR/A@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAJuCfpHxbYFxDENYFfnggh1D8ot4s493PQX0C7kD-JLvixC-Vg@mail.gmail.com> <20230503122839.0d9934c5@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20230503122839.0d9934c5@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 May 2023 10:40:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFYq7CZS4y2ZiF+AJHRKwnyhmZCk_uuTwFse26DxGh-qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        kent.overstreet@linux.dev, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        roman.gushchin@linux.dev, 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, 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

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 9:28=E2=80=AFAM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>=
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 May 2023 08:09:28 -0700
> Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>
> > There is another issue, which I think can be solved in a smart way but
> > will either affect performance or would require more memory. With the
> > tracing approach we don't know beforehand how many individual
> > allocation sites exist, so we have to allocate code tags (or similar
> > structures for counting) at runtime vs compile time. We can be smart
> > about it and allocate in batches or even preallocate more than we need
> > beforehand but, as I said, it will require some kind of compromise.
>
> This approach is actually quite common, especially since tagging every
> instance is usually overkill, as if you trace function calls in a running
> kernel, you will find that only a small percentage of the kernel ever
> executes. It's possible that you will be allocating a lot of tags that wi=
ll
> never be used. If run time allocation is possible, that is usually the
> better approach.

True but the memory overhead should not be prohibitive here. As a
ballpark number, on my machine I see there are 4838 individual
allocation locations and each codetag structure is 32 bytes, so that's
152KB.

>
> -- Steve