Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-84693-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <b62d2ace-4619-40ac-8536-c5626e95d87b@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:41:23 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/36] lib: add allocation tagging support for memory
 allocation profiling
Content-Language: en-US
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: kent.overstreet@linux.dev, mhocko@suse.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
 roman.gushchin@linux.dev, mgorman@suse.de, dave@stgolabs.net,
 willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com,
 penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, 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, 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
References: <20240221194052.927623-1-surenb@google.com>
 <20240221194052.927623-15-surenb@google.com>
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20240221194052.927623-15-surenb@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Another thing I noticed, dunno how critical

On 2/21/24 20:40, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> +static inline void __alloc_tag_sub(union codetag_ref *ref, size_t bytes)
> +{
> +	struct alloc_tag *tag;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG
> +	WARN_ONCE(ref && !ref->ct, "alloc_tag was not set\n");
> +#endif
> +	if (!ref || !ref->ct)
> +		return;

This is quite careful.

> +
> +	tag = ct_to_alloc_tag(ref->ct);
> +
> +	this_cpu_sub(tag->counters->bytes, bytes);
> +	this_cpu_dec(tag->counters->calls);
> +
> +	ref->ct = NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void alloc_tag_sub(union codetag_ref *ref, size_t bytes)
> +{
> +	__alloc_tag_sub(ref, bytes);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void alloc_tag_sub_noalloc(union codetag_ref *ref, size_t bytes)
> +{
> +	__alloc_tag_sub(ref, bytes);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void alloc_tag_ref_set(union codetag_ref *ref, struct alloc_tag *tag)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG
> +	WARN_ONCE(ref && ref->ct,
> +		  "alloc_tag was not cleared (got tag for %s:%u)\n",\
> +		  ref->ct->filename, ref->ct->lineno);
> +
> +	WARN_ONCE(!tag, "current->alloc_tag not set");
> +#endif
> +	if (!ref || !tag)
> +		return;

This too.

> +
> +	ref->ct = &tag->ct;
> +	/*
> +	 * We need in increment the call counter every time we have a new
> +	 * allocation or when we split a large allocation into smaller ones.
> +	 * Each new reference for every sub-allocation needs to increment call
> +	 * counter because when we free each part the counter will be decremented.
> +	 */
> +	this_cpu_inc(tag->counters->calls);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void alloc_tag_add(union codetag_ref *ref, struct alloc_tag *tag, size_t bytes)
> +{
> +	alloc_tag_ref_set(ref, tag);

We might have returned from alloc_tag_ref_set() due to !tag

> +	this_cpu_add(tag->counters->bytes, bytes);

But here we still assume it's valid.

> +}
> +