[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24037235-2174-423f-9055-c6a49aa659e2@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:51:32 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Sai Charan Sane <s.charan@...sung.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mhocko@...e.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, joe@...ches.com,
miles.chen@...iatek.com
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
a.sahrawat@...sung.com, pankaj.m@...sung.com, v.narang@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/page_owner: store page_owner's gfp_mask in
stackdepot itself
On 6/7/19 7:53 AM, Sai Charan Sane wrote:
> Memory overhead of 4MB is reduced by storing gfp_mask in stackdepot along
> with stacktrace. Stackdepot memory usage increased by ~100kb for 4GB of RAM.
>
> Page owner logs from dmesg:
> Before patch:
> allocated 20971520 bytes of page_ext
> After patch:
> allocated 16777216 bytes of page_ext
>
> Signed-off-by: Sai Charan Sane <s.charan@...sung.com>
I don't know, this looks like unneeded abuse to me. In the debug
scenario when someone boots a kernel with page_owner enabled, does 4MB
out of 4GB RAM really make a difference?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists