Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-67909-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 19:50:24 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, 
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 
	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, 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, 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 v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show_mem()
Message-ID: <a3ha7fchkeugpthmatm5lw7chg6zxkapyimn3qio3pkoipg4tc@3j6xfdfoustw>
References: <Zc4_i_ED6qjGDmhR@tiehlicka>
 <CAJuCfpHq3N0h6dGieHxD6Au+qs=iKAifFrHAMxTsHTcDrOwSQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ruxvgrm3scv7zfjzbq22on7tj2fjouydzk33k7m2kukm2n6uuw@meusbsciwuut>
 <320cd134-b767-4f29-869b-d219793ba8a1@suse.cz>
 <efxe67vo32epvmyzplmpd344nw2wf37azicpfhvkt3zz4aujm3@n27pl5j5zahj>
 <20240215180742.34470209@gandalf.local.home>
 <jpmlfejxcmxa7vpsuyuzykahr6kz5vjb44ecrzfylw7z4un3g7@ia3judu4xkfp>
 <20240215192141.03421b85@gandalf.local.home>
 <uhagqnpumyyqsnf4qj3fxm62i6la47yknuj4ngp6vfi7hqcwsy@lm46eypwe2lp>
 <20240215193915.2d457718@gandalf.local.home>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240215193915.2d457718@gandalf.local.home>

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 07:39:15PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 19:32:38 -0500
> Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:
> 
> > > But where are the benchmarks that are not micro-benchmarks. How much
> > > overhead does this cause to those? Is it in the noise, or is it noticeable?  
> > 
> > Microbenchmarks are how we magnify the effect of a change like this to
> > the most we'll ever see. Barring cache effects, it'll be in the noise.
> > 
> > Cache effects are a concern here because we're now touching task_struct
> > in the allocation fast path; that is where the
> > "compiled-in-but-turned-off" overhead comes from, because we can't add
> > static keys for that code without doubling the amount of icache
> > footprint, and I don't think that would be a great tradeoff.
> > 
> > So: if your code has fastpath allocations where the hot part of
> > task_struct isn't in cache, then this will be noticeable overhead to
> > you, otherwise it won't be.
> 
> All nice, but where are the benchmarks? This looks like it will have an
> affect on cache and you can talk all you want about how it will not be an
> issue, but without real world benchmarks, it's meaningless. Numbers talk.

Steve, you're being demanding. We provided sufficient benchmarks to show
the overhead is low enough for production, and then I gave you a
detailed breakdown of where our overhead is and where it'll show up. I
think that's reasonable.