Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: simplify kmem cgroup charge/uncharge code

[Michal Hocko]

On Tue 08-12-20 09:12:23, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> +Michal Hocko
> 
> Message starts at https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201207142204.GA18516@rlk
> 
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 10:08 PM Hui Su <sh_def@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 09:28:46AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 6:22 AM Hui Su <sh_def@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The reason to keep __memcg_kmem_[un]charge_page functions is that they
> > > were called in the very hot path. Can you please check the performance
> > > impact of your change and if the generated code is actually same or
> > > different.
> >
> > Hi, Shakeel:
> >
> > I objdump the mm/page_alloc.o and comapre them, it change the assemble code
> > indeed. In fact, it change some code order, which i personally think won't have
> > impact on performance. And i ran the ltp mm and conatiner test, it seems nothing
> > abnormal.
> 
> Did you run the tests in a memcg? The change is behind a static key of
> kmem accounting which is enabled for subcontainers.
> 
> >
> > BUT i still want to check whether this change will have negative impact on
> > perforance due to this change code was called in the very hot path like you
> > said, AND saddly i did not find a way to quantify the impact on performance.
> > Can you give me some suggestion about how to quantify the performance or some
> > tool?
> >
> 
> At least I think we can try with a simple page allocation in a loop
> i.e. alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT). I will think of any existing
> benchmark which exercises this code path.
> 
> Michal, do you have any suggestions?

I have to say I do not see any big benefit from the patch and it alters
a real hot path to check for the flag even in cases where kmem
accounting is not enabled, unless I am misreading the code.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs