[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141104145002.GE22207@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:50:02 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kirill@...temov.name,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vdavydov@...allels.com, tj@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] mm: embed the memcg pointer directly into struct page
On Tue 04-11-14 08:48:41, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 02:06:52PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The code size grows (~1.5k) most probably due to struct page pointer
> > arithmetic (but I haven't checked that) but the data section shrinks
> > for SLAB. So we have additional 1.6k for SLUB. I guess this is
> > acceptable.
> >
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 8427489 887684 3186688 12501861 bec365 mmotm/vmlinux.slab
> > 8429060 883588 3186688 12499336 beb988 page_cgroup/vmlinux.slab
> >
> > 8438894 883428 3186688 12509010 bedf52 mmotm/vmlinux.slub
> > 8440529 883428 3186688 12510645 bee5b5 page_cgroup/vmlinux.slub
>
> That's unexpected. It's not much, but how could the object size grow
> at all when that much code is removed and we replace the lookups with
> simple struct member accesses? Are you positive these are the right
> object files, in the right order?
Double checked (the base is [1] and page_cgroup refers to these 3
patches). Please note that this is a distribution config (OpenSUSE
13.2) so it enables a lot of things. And I would really expect that 36B
resp. 40B pointer arithmetic will do more instructions than 32B and this
piles up when it is used all over the place.
memcontrol.o shrinks 0.2k
$ size {mmotm,page_cgroup}/mm/memcontrol.o
text data bss dec hex filename
25337 3095 2 28434 6f12 mmotm/mm/memcontrol.o
25123 3095 2 28220 6e3c page_cgroup/mm/memcontrol.o
and page_cgroup.o saves 0.5k
$ size mmotm/mm/page_cgroup.o page_cgroup/mm/swap_cgroup.o
text data bss dec hex filename
1419 24 352 1795 703 mmotm/mm/page_cgroup.o
849 24 348 1221 4c5 page_cgroup/mm/swap_cgroup.o
But built-in.o files grow or keep the same size (this is with
CONFIG_SLAB and gcc 4.8.2)
$ size {mmotm,page_cgroup}/*/built-in.o | sort -k1 -n | awk '!/text/{new = (i++ % 2); if (!new) {val = $1; last_line=$0} else if ($1-val != 0) {diff = $1 - val; printf("%s\n%s diff %d\n", last_line, $0, diff); sum+=diff}}END{printf("Sum diff %d\n", sum)}'
14481 19586 81 34148 8564 mmotm/init/built-in.o
14483 19586 81 34150 8566 page_cgroup/init/built-in.o diff 2
68679 2082 12 70773 11475 mmotm/crypto/built-in.o
68711 2082 12 70805 11495 page_cgroup/crypto/built-in.o diff 32
131583 26496 2376 160455 272c7 mmotm/lib/built-in.o
131631 26496 2376 160503 272f7 page_cgroup/lib/built-in.o diff 48
229809 12346 1548 243703 3b7f7 mmotm/block/built-in.o
229937 12346 1548 243831 3b877 page_cgroup/block/built-in.o diff 128
308015 20442 16280 344737 542a1 mmotm/security/built-in.o
308031 20442 16280 344753 542b1 page_cgroup/security/built-in.o diff 16
507979 47110 27236 582325 8e2b5 mmotm/mm/built-in.o
508540 47110 27236 582886 8e4e6 page_cgroup/mm/built-in.o diff 561
1033752 77064 13212 1124028 1126bc mmotm/fs/built-in.o
1033784 77064 13212 1124060 1126dc page_cgroup/fs/built-in.o diff 32
1099218 51979 33512 1184709 1213c5 mmotm/net/built-in.o
1099282 51979 33512 1184773 121405 page_cgroup/net/built-in.o diff 64
1180475 127020 705068 2012563 1eb593 mmotm/kernel/built-in.o
1180683 127020 705068 2012771 1eb663 page_cgroup/kernel/built-in.o diff 208
2193400 152698 34856 2380954 24549a mmotm/drivers/built-in.o
2193528 152698 34856 2381082 24551a page_cgroup/drivers/built-in.o diff 128
Sum diff 1219
this is not a complete list but mm part eats only 0.5k the rest is small
but it adds up.
> > So to me it sounds like the savings for 64b are worth minor inconvenience
> > for 32b which is clearly on decline and I would definitely not encourage
> > people to use PAE kernels with a lot of memory where the difference
> > might matter. For the most x86 32b deployments (laptops with 4G) the
> > difference shouldn't be noticeable. I am not familiar with other archs
> > so the situation might be different there.
>
> On 32 bit, the overhead is 0.098% of memory, so 4MB on a 4G machine.
> This should be acceptable, even for the three people that run on the
> cutting edge of 3.18-based PAE distribution kernels. :-)
>
> > This should probably go into the changelog, I guess.
>
> Which part?
About potential increased memory footprint on 32b systems (aka don't
sell it as a full win ;))
---
[1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git/tag/?h=since-3.17&id=mmotm-2014-10-29-14-19
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists