From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com (mail-la0-f49.google.com [209.85.215.49]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BF46B00C6 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 11:12:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lagv1 with SMTP id v1so29401530lag.3 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 08:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n9si24019123wjr.172.2015.05.19.08.12.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 19 May 2015 08:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <555B52E3.3010504@suse.cz> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:12:35 +0200 From: Vlastimil Babka MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: Optionally disable memcg by default using Kconfig References: <20150519104057.GC2462@suse.de> <20150519141807.GA9788@cmpxchg.org> <20150519145340.GI6203@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20150519145340.GI6203@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner Cc: Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , cgroups@vger.kernel.org On 05/19/2015 04:53 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 19-05-15 10:18:07, Johannes Weiner wrote: >> CC'ing Tejun and cgroups for the generic cgroup interface part >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:40:57AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > [...] >>> /usr/src/linux-4.0-vanilla/mm/memcontrol.c 6.6441 395842 >>> mem_cgroup_try_charge 2.950% 175781 >> >> Ouch. Do you have a way to get the per-instruction breakdown of this? >> This function really isn't doing much. I'll try to reproduce it here >> too, I haven't seen such high costs with pft in the past. >> >>> try_charge 0.150% 8928 >>> get_mem_cgroup_from_mm 0.121% 7184 > > Indeed! try_charge + get_mem_cgroup_from_mm which I would expect to be > the biggest consumers here are below 10% of the mem_cgroup_try_charge. Note that they don't explain 10% of the mem_cgroup_try_charge. They *add* their own overhead to the overhead of mem_cgroup_try_charge itself. Which might be what you meant but I wasn't sure. > Other than that the function doesn't do much else than some flags > queries and css_put... > > Do you have the full trace? > Sorry for a stupid question but do inlines > from other header files get accounted to memcontrol.c? Yes, perf doesn't know about them so it's accounted to function where the code physically is. > > [...] > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org