linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
	 Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	 Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,  Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@linux.dev>,
	 Michal Koutny <mkoutny@suse.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	 Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org,  linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] fs/locks: Fix file lock cache accounting, again
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 12:20:59 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg_CoTOfkREgaQQA6oJ5nM9ZKYrTn=E1r-JnvmQcgWpSg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240117193915.urwueineol7p4hg7@treble>

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 11:39, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> That's a good point.  If the microbenchmark isn't likely to be even
> remotely realistic, maybe we should just revert the revert until if/when
> somebody shows a real world impact.
>
> Linus, any objections to that?

We use SLAB_ACCOUNT for much more common allocations like queued
signals, so I would tend to agree with Jeff that it's probably just
some not very interesting microbenchmark that shows any file locking
effects from SLAB_ALLOC, not any real use.

That said, those benchmarks do matter. It's very easy to say "not
relevant in the big picture" and then the end result is that
everything is a bit of a pig.

And the regression was absolutely *ENORMOUS*. We're not talking "a few
percent". We're talking a 33% regression that caused the revert:

   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210907150757.GE17617@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/

I wish our SLAB_ACCOUNT wasn't such a pig. Rather than account every
single allocation, it would be much nicer to account at a bigger
granularity, possibly by having per-thread counters first before
falling back to the obj_cgroup_charge. Whatever.

It's kind of stupid to have a benchmark that just allocates and
deallocates a file lock in quick succession spend lots of time
incrementing and decrementing cgroup charges for that repeated
alloc/free.

However, that problem with SLAB_ACCOUNT is not the fault of file
locking, but more of a slab issue.

End result: I think we should bring in Vlastimil and whoever else is
doing SLAB_ACCOUNT things, and have them look at that side.

And then just enable SLAB_ACCOUNT for file locks. But very much look
at silly costs in SLAB_ACCOUNT first, at least for trivial
"alloc/free" patterns..

Vlastimil? Who would be the best person to look at that SLAB_ACCOUNT
thing? See commit 3754707bcc3e (Revert "memcg: enable accounting for
file lock caches") for the history here.

                 Linus


  reply	other threads:[~2024-01-17 20:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-01-17 16:14 [PATCH RFC 0/4] " Josh Poimboeuf
2024-01-17 16:14 ` [PATCH RFC 1/4] fs/locks: " Josh Poimboeuf
2024-01-17 19:00   ` Jeff Layton
2024-01-17 19:39     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-01-17 20:20       ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2024-01-17 21:02         ` Shakeel Butt
2024-01-17 22:20           ` Roman Gushchin
2024-01-17 22:56             ` Shakeel Butt
2024-01-22  5:10               ` Linus Torvalds
2024-01-22 17:38                 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-01-26  9:50                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-01-30 11:04                   ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-01-19  7:47             ` Shakeel Butt
2024-01-17 21:19         ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-01-17 21:50         ` Roman Gushchin
2024-01-18  9:49     ` Michal Hocko
2024-01-17 16:14 ` [PATCH RFC 2/4] fs/locks: Add CONFIG_FLOCK_ACCOUNTING Josh Poimboeuf
2024-01-17 16:14 ` [PATCH RFC 3/4] mitigations: Expand 'mitigations=off' to include optional software mitigations Josh Poimboeuf
     [not found] ` <3e803d5aee5dd1f4c738f0de1e839e6cfcb9dc41.1705507931.git.jpoimboe@kernel.org>
2024-01-18  9:04   ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] mitigations: Add flock cache accounting to 'mitigations=off' Michal Koutný

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='CAHk-=wg_CoTOfkREgaQQA6oJ5nM9ZKYrTn=E1r-JnvmQcgWpSg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=jikos@kernel.org \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
    --cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vasily.averin@linux.dev \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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