From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling
Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 11:14:45 -0700
Message-ID: <ZFABlUB/RZM6lUyl@P9FQF9L96D>
References: <20230501165450.15352-1-surenb@google.com>
 <ZE/7FZbd31qIzrOc@P9FQF9L96D>
 <CAJuCfpHU3ZMsNuqi1gSxzAWKr2D3VkiaTY0BEUQgM-QHNxRtSg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1;
        t=1682964902;
        h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
         to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
         content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:
         in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
        bh=b6T2XIeT8518y54zvjorB3kR8+9w+3ujz9aAR//CBsM=;
        b=mSi6IKlT1RXSlUBLoPvq7jMrN2IDhBeePAQolSvVEaweLRyurIvLVwuABJN9Jpfic1Yvl3
        LVunGzZxNirFmh6ufKgjfRW52yn83tu+sfI5PXb6yM4xtBHMfTQkPxdaHjp58szJhD01u8
        vJeI+Y6gcJWP3T42UbTxsYN31rZoJ38=
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpHU3ZMsNuqi1gSxzAWKr2D3VkiaTY0BEUQgM-QHNxRtSg@mail.gmail.com>
List-ID: <cgroups.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
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

On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 11:08:05AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 10:47=E2=80=AFAM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@li=
nux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 09:54:10AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > Performance overhead:
> > > To evaluate performance we implemented an in-kernel test executing
> > > multiple get_free_page/free_page and kmalloc/kfree calls with allocat=
ion
> > > sizes growing from 8 to 240 bytes with CPU frequency set to max and C=
PU
> > > affinity set to a specific CPU to minimize the noise. Below is perfor=
mance
> > > comparison between the baseline kernel, profiling when enabled, profi=
ling
> > > when disabled (nomem_profiling=3Dy) and (for comparison purposes) bas=
eline
> > > with CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM enabled and allocations using __GFP_ACCOUNT:
> > >
> > >                       kmalloc                 pgalloc
> > > Baseline (6.3-rc7)    9.200s                  31.050s
> > > profiling disabled    9.800 (+6.52%)          32.600 (+4.99%)
> > > profiling enabled     12.500 (+35.87%)        39.010 (+25.60%)
> > > memcg_kmem enabled    41.400 (+350.00%)       70.600 (+127.38%)
> >
> > Hm, this makes me think we have a regression with memcg_kmem in one of
> > the recent releases. When I measured it a couple of years ago, the over=
head
> > was definitely within 100%.
> >
> > Do you understand what makes the your profiling drastically faster than=
 kmem?
>=20
> I haven't profiled or looked into kmem overhead closely but I can do
> that. I just wanted to see how the overhead compares with the existing
> accounting mechanisms.

It's a good idea and I generally think that +25-35% for kmalloc/pgalloc
should be ok for the production use, which is great!
In the reality, most workloads are not that sensitive to the speed of
memory allocation.

>=20
> For kmalloc, the overhead is low because after we create the vector of
> slab_ext objects (which is the same as what memcg_kmem does), memory
> profiling just increments a lazy counter (which in many cases would be
> a per-cpu counter).

So does kmem (this is why I'm somewhat surprised by the difference).

> memcg_kmem operates on cgroup hierarchy with
> additional overhead associated with that. I'm guessing that's the
> reason for the big difference between these mechanisms but, I didn't
> look into the details to understand memcg_kmem performance.

I suspect recent rt-related changes and also the wide usage of
rcu primitives in the kmem code. I'll try to look closer as well.

Thanks!