[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191014031054.GJ9933@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 20:10:54 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf tools: Make 'struct map_shared' truly shared
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 05:14:27PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> Andi reported that maps cloning is eating lot of memory and
> it's probably unnecessary, because they keep the same data.
>
> Changing 'struct map_shared' to be a pointer inside 'struct map',
> so it can be shared on fork. Changing the map__clone function to
> actually share 'struct map_shared' for cloned maps.
>
> The 'struct map_shared' carries its own refcnt counter, which is
> incremented when it's assigned to new 'struct map' and decremented
> when 'struct map' gets deleted in map__delete (its refcnt is 0).
>
> This 'maps sharing' seems to save lot of heap for reports with
> many forks/cloned mmaps (over 60% in example below).
The one case I wasn't sure about is with JIT support. So if
a map gets modified with fixup/start from /tmp/perf-%d
in one process, would it impact the other too?
We may need a COW operation for this (hopefully rare) case.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists