Re: [PATCH v0 1/2] perf: Add an option to ask for high order allocations for AUX buffers

[Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>]

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:47:15PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> Currently, the AUX buffer allocator will use high-order allocations
>> for PMUs that don't support hardware scatter-gather chaining to ensure
>> large contiguous blocks of pages, and always use an array of single
>> pages otherwise.
>> 
>> There is, however, a tangible performance benefit in using larger chunks
>> of contiguous memory even in the latter case, that comes from not having
>> to fetch the next page's address at every page boundary. In particular,
>> a task running under Intel PT on an Atom CPU shows 1.5%-2% less runtime
>> penalty with a single multi-page output region in snapshot mode (no PMI)
>> than with multiple single-page output regions, from ~6% down to ~4%. For
>> the snapshot mode it does make a difference as it is intended to run over
>> long periods of time.
>> 
>> Following the above justification, add an attribute bit to ask for a
>> high-order AUX allocation. To prevent an unprivileged user from using up
>> the higher orders of the page allocator, require CAP_SYS_ADMIN for this
>> option.
>
> Why do we need a knob for that? Last time I checked unpriv users could
> fragment the page allocator just fine. What is there to protect?
>
> Also, since we return all pages upon buffer free, the page allocator
> should in fact re-construct the high order stuff.
>
> So a buffer alloc + free, using high order pages, should be an effective
> nop on high order availability.
>
> Unlike spraying dentries or whatever works these days around the
> machine.

Good point. My worry is that since it's 'snapshot' mode, the buffer(s)
will be around potentially for a long time. Otherwise, I'd also prefer
to drop the capability wall.

Thanks,
--
Alex