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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5CA4C433B4 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 03:30:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D79D613AA for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 03:30:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7D79D613AA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 06E8D6B0070; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 23:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 044206B0071; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 23:30:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E275D6B0072; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 23:30:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0205.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.205]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47B16B0070 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 23:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin40.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C7452AE for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 03:30:10 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78076718580.40.C41299D Received: from mail-lf1-f45.google.com (mail-lf1-f45.google.com [209.85.167.45]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C65A0003A6 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 03:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f45.google.com with SMTP id x20so61213504lfu.6 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:30:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1/f4JVixSDUtfY05Md2NUGmbhN57QIb2bgma7dK5cAU=; b=Haegntx8II71fsjo5ukch+sUDr23zEkF/J/qNEpVmmL/ZqvcJAgbctNfGpJt84CeSZ s+F+HfGj+q1ifZqOPXfc+7VWk5hLwGqnU8juAJQQfH+Xn5SKE0vNWjJdFF5F1QR2Q/w1 OyfyMhebqHwHBl5HlBwQEW7CiLECAp9E8DHt1Hzwf0Lo/swVjRdh/XAcGcADCZfF+nsq PIbUmWmumb6wh3R4L9iBUBN63IqsRpM/GOmJWWH/YmHgpdzE9nYmZXpAvI4IEc2ps2UZ 94b2pzL49zWIfq5Mtd9HSyL7gDz9sBK3YyJjVSkvX4lFchmQ3JmTgAHc3iFQnYcWeSE7 6rKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1/f4JVixSDUtfY05Md2NUGmbhN57QIb2bgma7dK5cAU=; b=Hh6YqAurI0AL2XyaBQo7AXUTeOC+nmz4ozFoYBMiN7IGymFz/NxRJ5fmIT4cIPbBIT T7qytIT7SPSVejCF3bBKHOwl3zwL+yrVXRyvsWaS1g7CjtTVxvknpJ8oUi4Ak7QjcBX4 av6UuFOi9lDMDwNtLV9rf0UzWWkE+HwoLy4PnA7Tl6UkIhDWTN2K5FXl8xpTBHE8vFJQ LKMgiUs05vWRhgo45QUgH3TQlipnOAsv5WIyoTpCLA+e13TqaNAf4evspZ4GcqAO9Gc8 SnA9FhJr0ovfwMi52OnhEPJOKcYsD5pUT7n60XUd9rpJRdjEpVu6lNrBzr7KJJVwnwqf h07A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ZHR2dFvae4gH/OP1yOno+9ioQLIZ+sNLtt8Lpeqa4F2JrozQw PKn2t1RzxKaCKLObTTIK8cbJ5EfvAvCkI+Z/wfI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwb20u/69HZE27J3wrxf12je+L3qCbCg+Zfj/Sb+4NGCjbGt7tjCcSB/OyfAvpYJdy0V+aO3Y7OdXWGS7TK7Xo= X-Received: by 2002:a19:f504:: with SMTP id j4mr2105098lfb.307.1619494208480; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:30:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1619491400-1904-1-git-send-email-sxwjean@me.com> <20210427025358.GV235567@casper.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20210427025358.GV235567@casper.infradead.org> From: Xiongwei Song Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:29:32 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: append __GFP_COMP flag for trace_malloc To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Xiongwei Song , cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Stat-Signature: 77g789mg8ege9ayooxpxycfmdhzjzfak X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: E8C65A0003A6 Received-SPF: none (gmail.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf24; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mail-lf1-f45.google.com; client-ip=209.85.167.45 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1619494199-636597 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 Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:54 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:43:20AM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote: > > From: Xiongwei Song > > > > When calling kmalloc_order, the flags should include __GFP_COMP here, > > so that trace_malloc can trace the precise flags. > > I suppose that depends on your point of view. Correct. Should we report the > flags used by the caller, or the flags that we used to allocate memory? > And why does it matter? When I capture kmem:kmalloc events on my env with perf: (perf record -p my_pid -e kmem:kmalloc) I got the result below: 0.08% call_site=ffffffff851d0cb0 ptr=0xffff8c04a4ca0000 bytes_req=10176 bytes_alloc=16384 gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC 0.08% call_site=ffffffff851d0cb0 ptr=0xffff8c04a4ca4000 bytes_req=10176 bytes_alloc=16384 gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC 0.08% call_site=ffffffff851d0cb0 ptr=0xffff8c04a4ca8000 bytes_req=10176 bytes_alloc=16384 gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC 0.08% call_site=ffffffff851d0cb0 ptr=0xffff8c04a6f80000 bytes_req=10176 bytes_alloc=16384 gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC 0.08% call_site=ffffffff851d0cb0 ptr=0xffff8c04a6f84000 bytes_req=10176 bytes_alloc=16384 gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC 0.08% call_site=ffffffff851d0cb0 ptr=0xffff8c04a6f88000 bytes_req=10176 bytes_alloc=16384 gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC 0.08% call_site=ffffffff851d0cb0 ptr=0xffff8c04a6f8c000 bytes_req=10176 bytes_alloc=16384 gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC 0.07% call_site=ffffffff851d0cb0 ptr=0xffff8c04a4c80000 bytes_req=10176 bytes_alloc=16384 gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC The value of gfp_flags made me confused, I spent some time to find out which trace_malloc is here. So I think we should append __GFP_COMP. Regards