From: "David Wang" <00107082@163.com>
To: "Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@google.com>
Cc: kent.overstreet@linux.dev, "Hao Ge" <hao.ge@linux.dev>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, "Hao Ge" <gehao@kylinos.cn>,
"Alessio Balsini" <balsini@google.com>,
"Pasha Tatashin" <tatashin@google.com>,
"Sourav Panda" <souravpanda@google.com>
Subject: Re: memory alloc profiling seems not work properly during bootup?
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 09:27:25 +0800 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4c0ef846.1055.19467928c70.Coremail.00107082@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpHHAMc3CtcP7GUjDf=hbwUePY1jBGxG-KmbKYxuuoLZDg@mail.gmail.com>
At 2025-01-15 02:48:13, "Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 7:36 PM David Wang <00107082@163.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I have my accumulative counter patch and filter out items with 0 accumulative counter,
>> >> I am almost sure the patch would not cause this accounting issue, but not 100%.....
>> >
>> >Have you tested this without your accumulative counter patch?
>> >IIUC, that patch filters out any allocation which has never been hit.
>> >So, if suspend/resume path contains allocations which were never hit
>> >before then those allocations would become suddenly visible, like in
>> >your case. That's why I'm against filtering allocinfo data in the
>> >kernel. Please try this without your patch and see if the data becomes
>> >more consistent.
>>
>> I remove all my patch and build a 6.13.0-rc7 kernel,
>> After boot up,
>> 64 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:2579 func:alloc_sched_domains
>> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2275 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2266 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 96 6 kernel/sched/topology.c:2259 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 12288 24 kernel/sched/topology.c:2252 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2242 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2238 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2234 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2230 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 512 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:1961 func:sched_init_numa
>>
>> And after suspend/resume, no change detected:
>> 64 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:2579 func:alloc_sched_domains
>> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2275 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2266 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 96 6 kernel/sched/topology.c:2259 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 12288 24 kernel/sched/topology.c:2252 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2242 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2238 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2234 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2230 func:__sdt_alloc
>> 512 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:1961 func:sched_init_numa
>>
>> I also build a image with accumulative counter, but no filter.
>>
>> After boot up:
>> 64 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:2579 func:alloc_sched_domains 2
>> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2275 func:__sdt_alloc 80
>> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2266 func:__sdt_alloc 80
>> 96 6 kernel/sched/topology.c:2259 func:__sdt_alloc 80
>> 12288 24 kernel/sched/topology.c:2252 func:__sdt_alloc 80
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2242 func:__sdt_alloc 0 <---this *0* seems wrong
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2238 func:__sdt_alloc 0
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2234 func:__sdt_alloc 0
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2230 func:__sdt_alloc 0
>> 512 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:1961 func:sched_init_numa 1
>>
>> And then suspend/resume:
>> 64 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:2579 func:alloc_sched_domains 17
>> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2275 func:__sdt_alloc 395
>> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2266 func:__sdt_alloc 395
>> 96 6 kernel/sched/topology.c:2259 func:__sdt_alloc 395
>> 12288 24 kernel/sched/topology.c:2252 func:__sdt_alloc 395
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2242 func:__sdt_alloc 70
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2238 func:__sdt_alloc 70
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2234 func:__sdt_alloc 70
>> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2230 func:__sdt_alloc 70
>> 512 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:1961 func:sched_init_numa 1>
>> Reading the code, those allocation behaviors should be tied together:
>> if kzalloc_node at line#2252 happened, then alloc_percpu at line#2230 should also happened.
>
>Hmm, ok. Looks like early calls to alloc_percpu() are not being
>registered somehow. Could you please share your cumulative counter
>patch with me? I'll try to reproduce this locally and see if I can
>spot the issue.
Sure, here is the patch base on 6.13.0-rc7.
diff --git a/include/linux/alloc_tag.h b/include/linux/alloc_tag.h
index 0bbbe537c5f9..6ca680604c6d 100644
--- a/include/linux/alloc_tag.h
+++ b/include/linux/alloc_tag.h
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
struct alloc_tag_counters {
u64 bytes;
u64 calls;
+ u64 accu_calls;
};
/*
@@ -124,7 +125,7 @@ static inline bool mem_alloc_profiling_enabled(void)
static inline struct alloc_tag_counters alloc_tag_read(struct alloc_tag *tag)
{
- struct alloc_tag_counters v = { 0, 0 };
+ struct alloc_tag_counters v = { 0, 0, 0 };
struct alloc_tag_counters *counter;
int cpu;
@@ -132,6 +133,7 @@ static inline struct alloc_tag_counters alloc_tag_read(struct alloc_tag *tag)
counter = per_cpu_ptr(tag->counters, cpu);
v.bytes += counter->bytes;
v.calls += counter->calls;
+ v.accu_calls += counter->accu_calls;
}
return v;
@@ -179,6 +181,7 @@ static inline bool alloc_tag_ref_set(union codetag_ref *ref, struct alloc_tag *t
* counter because when we free each part the counter will be decremented.
*/
this_cpu_inc(tag->counters->calls);
+ this_cpu_inc(tag->counters->accu_calls);
return true;
}
diff --git a/lib/alloc_tag.c b/lib/alloc_tag.c
index 7dcebf118a3e..615833d4fbd7 100644
--- a/lib/alloc_tag.c
+++ b/lib/alloc_tag.c
@@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ static void alloc_tag_to_text(struct seq_buf *out, struct codetag *ct)
seq_buf_printf(out, "%12lli %8llu ", bytes, counter.calls);
codetag_to_text(out, ct);
+ seq_buf_printf(out, " %llu", counter.accu_calls);
seq_buf_putc(out, ' ');
seq_buf_putc(out, '\n');
}
David
>
>>
>> kernel/sched/topology.c
>> 2230 sdd->sd = alloc_percpu(struct sched_domain *);
>> 2231 if (!sdd->sd)
>> 2232 return -ENOMEM;
>> ...
>> 2246 for_each_cpu(j, cpu_map) {
>> ...
>> 2252 sd = kzalloc_node(sizeof(struct sched_domain) + cpumask_size(),
>> 2253 GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(j));
>> ...
>> 2257 *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sd, j) = sd;
>>
>>
>> But somehow during bootup, those alloc_percpu in kernel/sched/topology.c:__sdt_alloc were missed in profiling.
>> (I am not meant to sell the idea of accumulative counter again here, but it dose help sometimes. :).
>>
>> >Thanks,
>> >Suren.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>>
>> Thanks
>> David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-15 1:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-06 11:21 [PATCH] tools/mm: Introduce a tool to handle entries in allocinfo Hao Ge
2025-01-06 21:11 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-01-07 15:11 ` Alessio Balsini
2025-01-08 1:16 ` Hao Ge
2025-01-11 14:31 ` David Wang
2025-01-12 4:41 ` David Wang
2025-01-13 8:03 ` memory alloc profiling seems not work properly during bootup? David Wang
2025-01-13 21:56 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-01-14 3:35 ` David Wang
2025-01-14 18:48 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-01-15 1:27 ` David Wang [this message]
2025-01-20 21:03 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-01-13 21:47 ` [PATCH] tools/mm: Introduce a tool to handle entries in allocinfo Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-01-09 0:19 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4c0ef846.1055.19467928c70.Coremail.00107082@163.com \
--to=00107082@163.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balsini@google.com \
--cc=gehao@kylinos.cn \
--cc=hao.ge@linux.dev \
--cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=souravpanda@google.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=tatashin@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox