Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-65925-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:17:50 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpGnnsMFu-2i6-d=n1N89Z3cByN4N1txpTv+vcWSBrC2eg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240212213922.783301-1-surenb@google.com> <4f24986587b53be3f9ece187a3105774eb27c12f.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <CAJuCfpGnnsMFu-2i6-d=n1N89Z3cByN4N1txpTv+vcWSBrC2eg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Zc0f7u5yCq-Iwh3A@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/35] Memory allocation profiling
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 
	kent.overstreet@linux.dev, mhocko@suse.com, 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, 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, 
	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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> > > 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 are results
> > > from running the test on Ubuntu 22.04.2 LTS with 6.8.0-rc1 kernel on
> > > 56 core Intel Xeon:
> > >
> > >                         kmalloc                 pgalloc
> > > (1 baseline)            6.764s                  16.902s
> > > (2 default disabled)    6.793s (+0.43%)         17.007s (+0.62%)
> > > (3 default enabled)     7.197s (+6.40%)         23.666s (+40.02%)
> > > (4 runtime enabled)     7.405s (+9.48%)         23.901s (+41.41%)
> > > (5 memcg)               13.388s (+97.94%)       48.460s (+186.71%)
> 
> (6 default disabled+memcg)    13.332s (+97.10%)         48.105s (+184.61%)
> (7 default enabled+memcg)     13.446s (+98.78%)       54.963s (+225.18%)

I think these numbers are very interesting for folks that already use
memcg. Specifically, the difference between 6 & 7, which seems to be
~0.85% and ~14.25%. IIUC, this means that the extra overhead is
relatively much lower if someone is already using memcgs.

> 
> (6) shows a bit better performance than (5) but it's probably noise. I
> would expect them to be roughly the same. Hope this helps.
> 
> > >
> >
> >