[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <iqynyf7tiei5xgpxiifzsnj4z6gpazujrisdsrjagt2c6agdfd@th3rlagul4nn>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:27:16 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, 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, 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, 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 v3 13/35] lib: add allocation tagging support for memory
allocation profiling
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:22:44PM -0500, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 8:00 PM Kent Overstreet
> <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:54:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:38:59 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +Example output.
> > > > +
> > > > +::
> > > > +
> > > > + > cat /proc/allocinfo
> > > > +
> > > > + 153MiB mm/slub.c:1826 module:slub func:alloc_slab_page
> > > > + 6.08MiB mm/slab_common.c:950 module:slab_common func:_kmalloc_order
> > > > + 5.09MiB mm/memcontrol.c:2814 module:memcontrol func:alloc_slab_obj_exts
> > > > + 4.54MiB mm/page_alloc.c:5777 module:page_alloc func:alloc_pages_exact
> > > > + 1.32MiB include/asm-generic/pgalloc.h:63 module:pgtable func:__pte_alloc_one
> > >
> > > I don't really like the fancy MiB stuff. Wouldn't it be better to just
> > > present the amount of memory in plain old bytes, so people can use sort
> > > -n on it?
> >
> > They can use sort -h on it; the string_get_size() patch was specifically
> > so that we could make the output compatible with sort -h
> >
> > > And it's easier to tell big-from-small at a glance because
> > > big has more digits.
> > >
> > > Also, the first thing any sort of downstream processing of this data is
> > > going to have to do is to convert the fancified output back into
> > > plain-old-bytes. So why not just emit plain-old-bytes?
> > >
> > > If someone wants the fancy output (and nobody does) then that can be
> > > done in userspace.
> >
> > I like simpler, more discoverable tools; e.g. we've got a bunch of
> > interesting stuff in scripts/ but it doesn't get used nearly as much -
> > not as accessible as cat'ing a file, definitely not going to be
> > installed by default.
>
> I also prefer plain bytes instead of MiB. A driver developer that
> wants to verify up-to the byte allocations for a new data structure
> that they added is going to be disappointed by the rounded MiB
> numbers.
That's a fair point.
> The data contained in this file is not consumable without at least
> "sort -h -r", so why not just output bytes instead?
>
> There is /proc/slabinfo and there is a slabtop tool.
> For raw /proc/allocinfo we can create an alloctop tool that would
> parse, sort and show data in human readable format based on various
> criteria.
>
> We should also add at the top of this file "allocinfo - version: 1.0",
> to allow future extensions (i.e. column for proc name).
How would we feel about exposing two different versions in /proc? It
should be a pretty minimal addition to .text.
Personally, I hate trying to count long strings digits by eyeball...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists