Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Fix tracepoint mm_page_alloc_zone_locked()

[Wonhyuk Yang]

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 12:47 AM Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 12:02:30AM +0900, Wonhyuk Yang wrote:
> > > The original intent of that tracepoint was to trace when pages were
> > > removed from the buddy list. That would suggest this untested patch on
> > > top of yours as a simplication;
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > index 0351808322ba..66a70b898130 100644
> > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > @@ -2476,6 +2476,8 @@ struct page *__rmqueue_smallest(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
> > >                 del_page_from_free_list(page, zone, current_order);
> > >                 expand(zone, page, order, current_order, migratetype);
> > >                 set_pcppage_migratetype(page, migratetype);
> > > +               trace_mm_page_alloc_zone_locked(page, order, migratetype,
> > > +                       pcp_allowed_order(order) && migratetype < MIGRATE_PCPTYPES);
> > >                 return page;
> > >         }
> >
> > Interestingly, my first approach was quite similar your suggestion. But I
> > noticed that there can be a request whose migration type is MOVABLE
> > and alloc_flags doen't have ALLOC_CMA. In that case, page are marked
> > as percpu-refill even though it was allocated from buddy-list directly.
> > Is there no problem if we just ignore this case?
> >
>
> I assume you are referring to the case where CMA allocations are being
> balanced between regular and CMA areas. I think it's relatively harmless
> if percpu_refill field is not 100% accurate for that case. There are
> also cases like the percpu list is too small to hold a THP and it's not a
> percpu_refill either. If 100% accuracy is an issue, I would prefer renaming
> it to percpu_eligible or just deleting it instead of adding complexity
> for a tracepoint.  The main value of that tracepoint is determining what
> percentage of allocations are potentially contending on zone lock at a
> particular time.
>

Okay, I'll send a new one with your suggestions. Thanks