Re: [PATCH] mm: append __GFP_COMP flag for trace_malloc

[Xiongwei Song]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:36 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:29:32AM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:54 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:43:20AM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> > > > From: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > When calling kmalloc_order, the flags should include __GFP_COMP here,
> > > > so that trace_malloc can trace the precise flags.
> > >
> > > I suppose that depends on your point of view.
> > Correct.
> >
> > Should we report the
> > > flags used by the caller, or the flags that we used to allocate memory?
> > > And why does it matter?
> > When I capture kmem:kmalloc events on my env with perf:
> > (perf record -p my_pid -e kmem:kmalloc)
> > I got the result below:
> >      0.08%  call_site=ffffffff851d0cb0 ptr=0xffff8c04a4ca0000
> > bytes_req=10176 bytes_alloc=16384
> > gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
>
> Hmm ... if you have a lot of allocations about this size, that would
> argue in favour of adding a kmem_cache of 10880 [*] bytes.  That way,
> we'd get 3 allocations per 32kB instead of 2.
I understand you. But I don't think our process needs this size. This size
may be a bug in our code or somewhere, I don't know the RC for now.

> [*] 32768 / 3, rounded down to a 64 byte cacheline
>
> But I don't understand why this confused you.  Your caller at
> ffffffff851d0cb0 didn't specify __GFP_COMP.  I'd be more confused if
> this did report __GFP_COMP.
>
I just wanted to save some time when debugging.

Regards