[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZE/7FZbd31qIzrOc@P9FQF9L96D>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 10:47:01 -0700
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
mgorman@...e.de, dave@...olabs.net, willy@...radead.org,
liam.howlett@...cle.com, corbet@....net, void@...ifault.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
x86@...nel.org, peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, mcgrof@...nel.org, masahiroy@...nel.org,
nathan@...nel.org, dennis@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
muchun.song@...ux.dev, rppt@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
pasha.tatashin@...een.com, yosryahmed@...gle.com,
yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
andreyknvl@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
ebiggers@...gle.com, ytcoode@...il.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com,
penberg@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com,
glider@...gle.com, elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
shakeelb@...gle.com, songmuchun@...edance.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling
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 allocation
> sizes growing from 8 to 240 bytes with CPU frequency set to max and CPU
> affinity set to a specific CPU to minimize the noise. Below is performance
> comparison between the baseline kernel, profiling when enabled, profiling
> when disabled (nomem_profiling=y) and (for comparison purposes) baseline
> 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 overhead
was definitely within 100%.
Do you understand what makes the your profiling drastically faster than kmem?
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists