linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/39] Memory allocation profiling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJuCfpGNQpFLnUsEpGgiDmOBW17RXJ3B-u2+ogi7NNhfi-gBLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:38:47 -0700
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
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, vvvvvv@...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 v2 00/39] Memory allocation profiling

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:29 AM Roman Gushchin
<roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 06:45:57AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > Updates since the last version [1]
> > - Simplified allocation tagging macros;
> > - Runtime enable/disable sysctl switch (/proc/sys/vm/mem_profiling)
> > instead of kernel command-line option;
> > - CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_BY_DEFAULT to select default enable state;
> > - Changed the user-facing API from debugfs to procfs (/proc/allocinfo);
> > - Removed context capture support to make patch incremental;
> > - Renamed uninstrumented allocation functions to use _noprof suffix;
> > - Added __GFP_LAST_BIT to make the code cleaner;
> > - Removed lazy per-cpu counters; it turned out the memory savings was
> > minimal and not worth the performance impact;
>
> Hello Suren,
>
> > 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 and (for comparison purposes) baseline with
> > CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM enabled and allocations using __GFP_ACCOUNT:
> >
> >                         kmalloc                 pgalloc
> > (1 baseline)            12.041s                 49.190s
> > (2 default disabled)    14.970s (+24.33%)       49.684s (+1.00%)
> > (3 default enabled)     16.859s (+40.01%)       56.287s (+14.43%)
> > (4 runtime enabled)     16.983s (+41.04%)       55.760s (+13.36%)
> > (5 memcg)               33.831s (+180.96%)      51.433s (+4.56%)
>
> some recent changes [1] to the kmem accounting should have made it quite a bit
> faster. Would be great if you can provide new numbers for the comparison.
> Maybe with the next revision?
>
> And btw thank you (and Kent): your numbers inspired me to do this kmemcg
> performance work. I expect it still to be ~twice more expensive than your
> stuff because on the memcg side we handle separately charge and statistics,
> but hopefully the difference will be lower.

Yes, I saw them! Well done! I'll definitely update my numbers once the
patches land in their final form.

>
> Thank you!

Thank you for the optimizations!

>
> [1]:
>   patches from next tree, so no stable hashes:
>     mm: kmem: reimplement get_obj_cgroup_from_current()
>     percpu: scoped objcg protection
>     mm: kmem: scoped objcg protection
>     mm: kmem: make memcg keep a reference to the original objcg
>     mm: kmem: add direct objcg pointer to task_struct
>     mm: kmem: optimize get_obj_cgroup_from_current()