Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-61371-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <9081f1ca-825e-4285-9b22-854d265e3af3@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 11:47:01 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] mm,page_owner: Display all stacks and their count
Content-Language: en-US
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
 Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
 Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
References: <20240208234539.19113-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <20240208234539.19113-4-osalvador@suse.de>
 <CANpmjNNcPr=pPco_HN9nXBabubtfo02SAH=taZGNCvYDq42YUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZcaesCP4mY-94ciJ@localhost.localdomain>
 <ZcaxxQE1PkepEWwf@localhost.localdomain>
 <CANpmjNOpfdgMT1jNPJev_e6tecZjGn4n8Sk6aoaLVDsqfJgmKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZckwfAk3rAWU0Jg-@localhost.localdomain>
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <ZckwfAk3rAWU0Jg-@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2/11/24 21:39, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 08:52:25AM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
>> The extra bits are used by KMSAN, and might conflict if enabled at the
>> same time. I think the safest option is to keep your own list. I think
>> that will also be more performant if there are other stackdepot users
>> because you do not have to traverse any of the other entries.
> 
> Ok, I thought we had spare bits for other users.
> But thinking about it some more, yes, it makes sense for page_owner to
> maintain its own list, so traversing it is faster and we do not have
> to place code to traverse the buckets in stackdepot.

Would it make sense to introduce per-user stack depot instances? ("user"
being a subsystem i.e. kasan or page_owner). I'd expect each to have a
distinct set of stacks, so there's no benefits of using the same hash table,
only downsides of longer collision lists?

I can imagine this would be easier for users that don't need the early init
kind of stackdepot, but maybe even there it could be feasible to have a
small fixed size array of hash table roots and every user would get a
separate index?