Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:29:03 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, kent.overstreet@linux.dev,
        mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        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, vvvvvv@google.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, ebiggers@google.com, ytcoode@gmail.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/39] Memory allocation profiling
Message-ID: <ZTgM74EapT9mea2l@P9FQF9L96D.corp.robot.car>
References: <20231024134637.3120277-1-surenb@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231024134637.3120277-1-surenb@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 06:45:57AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Updates since the last version [1]
> - Simplified allocation tagging macros;
> - Runtime enable/disable sysctl switch (/proc/sys/vm/mem_profiling)
> instead of kernel command-line option;
> - CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_BY_DEFAULT to select default enable state;
> - Changed the user-facing API from debugfs to procfs (/proc/allocinfo);
> - Removed context capture support to make patch incremental;
> - Renamed uninstrumented allocation functions to use _noprof suffix;
> - Added __GFP_LAST_BIT to make the code cleaner;
> - Removed lazy per-cpu counters; it turned out the memory savings was
> minimal and not worth the performance impact;

Hello Suren,

> Performance overhead:
> To evaluate performance we implemented an in-kernel test executing
> multiple get_free_page/free_page and kmalloc/kfree calls with allocation
> sizes growing from 8 to 240 bytes with CPU frequency set to max and CPU
> affinity set to a specific CPU to minimize the noise. Below is performance
> comparison between the baseline kernel, profiling when enabled, profiling
> when disabled and (for comparison purposes) baseline with
> CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM enabled and allocations using __GFP_ACCOUNT:
> 
>                         kmalloc                 pgalloc
> (1 baseline)            12.041s                 49.190s
> (2 default disabled)    14.970s (+24.33%)       49.684s (+1.00%)
> (3 default enabled)     16.859s (+40.01%)       56.287s (+14.43%)
> (4 runtime enabled)     16.983s (+41.04%)       55.760s (+13.36%)
> (5 memcg)               33.831s (+180.96%)      51.433s (+4.56%)

some recent changes [1] to the kmem accounting should have made it quite a bit
faster. Would be great if you can provide new numbers for the comparison.
Maybe with the next revision?

And btw thank you (and Kent): your numbers inspired me to do this kmemcg
performance work. I expect it still to be ~twice more expensive than your
stuff because on the memcg side we handle separately charge and statistics,
but hopefully the difference will be lower.

Thank you!

[1]:
  patches from next tree, so no stable hashes:
    mm: kmem: reimplement get_obj_cgroup_from_current()
    percpu: scoped objcg protection
    mm: kmem: scoped objcg protection
    mm: kmem: make memcg keep a reference to the original objcg
    mm: kmem: add direct objcg pointer to task_struct
    mm: kmem: optimize get_obj_cgroup_from_current()