From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97981ECAAA1 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 08:03:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2E78D6B0075; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 04:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2970F6B0078; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 04:03:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 137D2940007; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 04:03:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A516B0075 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 04:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin01.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF15E1C6AEB for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 08:03:26 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79855519212.01.9ABEAC4 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by imf23.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F88140036 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 08:03:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1661846605; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=xSV7VY1bq+Nj0WGpDaHmCr7wgHdHGp/Zx8FfKypgW+Y=; b=Tu7bYr6mt6JN/+gL8pRj8JN/6XZjEXhEQfd2Xia51TfNn0Sfelyza2syaGy2k7pI+aI0Mk G0e9cIqVSa+Ys8FiNMPDQSGgV5EOB6o+ZJDb8Pi5BAQE0RpHiepmKMcFHoMnYh2YGGvvNb 3qzJ8d2jhHq1gw+fC0055mfy6kk7iiI= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-437-d3d8eVMtOjiW5_kd_E1N8Q-1; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 04:03:24 -0400 X-MC-Unique: d3d8eVMtOjiW5_kd_E1N8Q-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id b16-20020a05600c4e1000b003a5a47762c3so6268213wmq.9 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 01:03:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:organization:from:references :cc:to:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=xSV7VY1bq+Nj0WGpDaHmCr7wgHdHGp/Zx8FfKypgW+Y=; b=crynmOcgpHPwFXhadT/ic2awpzFnnI7zzz8rumGZC3diSs/5MuuJKKLT0af0MMgqso cXkaNpEfLTokWnAPkKpcoAOOzorgvPRWnV6YzOvCMAuQAA+7I8MJFRswIRJ5h7rlr6OS jWbGxy3HG2X/mO/Kyjfbd/c02Io/m1x3x9pTG7wdb+qn7Ki/4iZqE5mXfnQ6kn/4b7MY IN2glt10OjtWMoxc7GEeuGb362wpKSmT9xFkKLgZQ9pJFmpCfhIfAc51S+NEvwlaDmNr YdoxcKwRnMAWtn9Uc5utdKvWggN01mdKxHdZkgvmdlG5BOyeXLNiioetaoZHCm7Hjh8Q NvWw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0QjgUgrruEPR43MhxvGX65Q1NuUUoF6xVMxZ1GmBtsvIkSfVYP lqWbQpB6B2SR8chj0nGVcyN70fC+che0sb1cWERRTFyLmEqyo9Ej90iXb18dgMIKXXm6XnjVcgd ZVdzrmj7i4oo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:60c:b0:220:757a:54a8 with SMTP id bn12-20020a056000060c00b00220757a54a8mr8415655wrb.685.1661846603056; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 01:03:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5kYhllNyowsxXNRbBSGr72CL2PgWCsQeiOGuKPaFTxf2N3We9Ua52tLi5u3RLh+EKXg21SSg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:60c:b0:220:757a:54a8 with SMTP id bn12-20020a056000060c00b00220757a54a8mr8415626wrb.685.1661846602721; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 01:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:cb:c70a:1000:ecb4:919b:e3d3:e20b? (p200300cbc70a1000ecb4919be3d3e20b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:cb:c70a:1000:ecb4:919b:e3d3:e20b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i15-20020a05600c400f00b003a54f1d007csm11693661wmm.10.2022.08.30.01.03.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Aug 2022 01:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <29503bc0-441e-359e-29d0-37ac3c5dff04@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 10:03:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: skip reserved page for kmem leak scanning To: Zhaoyang Huang Cc: "zhaoyang.huang" , Andrew Morton , Catalin Marinas , "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" , LKML , Ke Wang References: <1661483530-11308-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> <12759ac7-4a6c-89fa-5fd0-914728f6415e@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf23.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Tu7bYr6m; spf=pass (imf23.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1661846606; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=Re1TW2cHVQVLx7e3mfrqe3v3v7XEbyt4iKx6Xo6K3oQnBhkNHmdXtkJeqU+lGNN4gJ42mF 3YEn5gUfE7dc4DyRzOemo7h8wyv7aIGYU0mw15UaCtuGfaAPHazo0/zZctgRIqsuMd8LbI hKfU275qDIAFDIctP7nc7NwHb4rdTGI= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1661846606; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=xSV7VY1bq+Nj0WGpDaHmCr7wgHdHGp/Zx8FfKypgW+Y=; b=0TPtfyuS19lPT6JM5xOAP+9eE+jqWMipUg1esw6prHE4/hII5JEdSdH2P8pdOBLAYIWYBa TJC8OyCHs26ikfu/qNyVthcHt40Crywr3IjxWpUGBomQmudwL5vUMO/XfruB/a3dhsgRbX qA0Eg+Chg076/JhOgZbjv0/768qqKHg= X-Stat-Signature: h8xzte7fgkuty7jm67wjki643gktof5j X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf23.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Tu7bYr6m; spf=pass (imf23.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 03F88140036 X-HE-Tag: 1661846605-396216 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 30.08.22 04:41, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 8:19 PM David Hildenbrand wrote: >> >> On 26.08.22 05:23, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:13 AM zhaoyang.huang >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Zhaoyang Huang >>>> >>>> It is no need to scan reserved page, skip it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang >>>> --- >>>> mm/kmemleak.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c >>>> index a182f5d..c546250 100644 >>>> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c >>>> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c >>>> @@ -1471,7 +1471,7 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void) >>>> if (page_zone(page) != zone) >>>> continue; >>>> /* only scan if page is in use */ >>>> - if (page_count(page) == 0) >>>> + if (page_count(page) == 0 || PageReserved(page)) >>> Sorry for previous stupid code by my faint, correct it here >> >> Did you even test the initial patch? >> >> I wonder why we should consider this change >> >> (a) I doubt it's a performance issue. If it is, please provide numbers >> before/after. > For Android-like SOC systems where AP(cpu runs linux) are one of the > memory consumers which are composed of other processors such as modem, > isp,wcn etc. The reserved memory occupies a certain number of > memory(could be 30% of MemTotal) which makes scan reserved pages > pointless. But we only scan the memmap (struct page) here and not the actual memory. Do you have any performance numbers showing that there is even an observable change? >> (b) We'll stop scanning early allocations. As the memmap is usually >> allocated early during boot ... we'll stop scanning essentially the >> whole mmap and that whole loop would be dead code? What am i >> missing? > memmap refers to pages here? If we can surpass these as it exist > permanently during life period. Besides, I wonder if PageLRU should > also be skipped? > - if (page_count(page) == 0) > + if (page_count(page) == 0 || > PageReserved(page) || PageLRU(page)) I think we need a really good justification to start poking holes into the memmap scanner. I'm no expert on this code (and under which circumstances we actually might find referenced objects in a memmap), though. But we should be careful with that. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb