linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "David Wang" <00107082@163.com>
To: "Kent Overstreet" <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc: "Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@google.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] alloc_tag: avoid mem alloc and iter reset when reading allocinfo
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 00:58:25 +0800 (CST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5294252d.b74a.196b0d583c6.Coremail.00107082@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <is4valhxssgmj7cjdlp2gfvyivhdflu75vzzbkjeiyb47wom55@yx5lfwsptamg>


At 2025-05-09 00:34:27, "Kent Overstreet" <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:
>On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 12:24:56AM +0800, David Wang wrote:
>> At 2025-05-08 21:33:50, "Kent Overstreet" <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:
>> >The first question is - does it matter? If the optimization is just for
>> >/proc/allocinfo, who's reading it at a high enough rate that we care?
>> >
>> >If it's only being used interactively, it doesn't matter. If it's being
>> >read at a high rate by some sort of profiling program, we'd want to skip
>> >the text interface entirely and add an ioctl to read the data out in a
>> >binary format.
>> ...^_^, Actually, I have been running tools parsing /proc/allocinfo every 5 seconds
>> ,and feeding data to a prometheus server for a quite long while...
>> 5 seconds seems not that frequent, but I also have all other proc files to read, 
>> I would like optimization for all the proc files......
>> 
>> Ioctl or other binary interfaces are indeed more efficient, but most are
>> not well documented, while most proc files are self-documented. If proc files
>> are efficient enough, I think I would stay with proc files even with a binary
>> interface alternate tens of fold faster.
>
>This would be a perfect place for a binary interface, you just want to
>return an array of
>
>struct allocated_by_ip {
>	u64	ip;
>	u64	bytes;
>};



>
>Printing it in text form requires symbol table lookup, what you're
>optimizing is noise compared to that and vsnprintf().

Oh, no, this optimization is mostly achieved by avoiding iter rewinding, I think
I talk about the extra memory allocation "too much"....
These lines of code:
-	while ((ct = codetag_next_ct(&priv->iter)) != NULL && node)
-		node--;
have accumulated way too much.
Think it this way, advancing iterator n times takes 1%, reasonable noise
compared to  symbol lookup and printf(). The problem is seq_file() would
restart about 80 times to read out all content of /proc/allocinfo, accumulated
to a total 40*n iterator advancement, hence 1% become 40*1%, noise become significant.

My test result shows an improvement from 7ms to 4ms:

Timings before:
	$ time cat /proc/allocinfo  > /dev/null

	real	0m0.007s
	user	0m0.000s
	sys	0m0.007s
read-syscalls get slower and slower:
	read(3, "allocinfo - version: 1.0\n#     <"..., 131072) = 4085 <0.000062>
	...
	read(3, "           0        0 drivers/gp"..., 131072) = 4046 <0.000135>
	read(3, "           0        0 sound/core"..., 131072) = 4021 <0.000150>
	...

and with the change:
	$ time cat /proc/allocinfo  > /dev/null

	real	0m0.004s
	user	0m0.000s
	sys	0m0.003s


  reply	other threads:[~2025-05-08 16:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-05-07 17:55 David Wang
2025-05-07 18:19 ` David Wang
2025-05-07 23:42   ` [PATCH] " Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-05-08  0:01     ` Kent Overstreet
2025-05-08  3:06       ` David Wang
2025-05-08  3:31         ` Kent Overstreet
2025-05-08  3:35           ` David Wang
2025-05-08  4:07             ` Kent Overstreet
2025-05-08  5:51               ` David Wang
2025-05-08 13:33                 ` Kent Overstreet
2025-05-08 16:24                   ` David Wang
2025-05-08 16:34                     ` Kent Overstreet
2025-05-08 16:58                       ` David Wang [this message]
2025-05-08 17:17                         ` David Wang
2025-05-08 17:26                           ` Kent Overstreet
2025-05-08  2:24     ` David Wang
2025-05-07 23:36 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-05-08  3:10   ` David Wang
2025-05-08 15:32   ` David Wang
2025-05-08 21:41     ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-05-09  5:53 ` [PATCH 2/2] alloc_tag: keep codetag iterator cross read() calls David Wang
2025-05-09 17:34   ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-05-09 17:45     ` David Wang
2025-05-09 17:39 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] alloc_tag: keep codetag iterator active between " David Wang
2025-05-09 18:33   ` Tim Chen
2025-05-09 19:36     ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-05-09 19:46       ` Tim Chen
2025-05-09 20:46         ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-05-09 21:15           ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-05-10  3:10             ` David Wang
2025-05-10  3:30               ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-05-10  3:58                 ` David Wang
2025-05-10  4:03                   ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-05-10  3:35         ` David Wang
2025-05-10  3:25     ` David Wang

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=5294252d.b74a.196b0d583c6.Coremail.00107082@163.com \
    --to=00107082@163.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=surenb@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