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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C17C43219 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 12:06:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 747FE6B0071; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 07:06:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6F7A16B0072; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 07:06:14 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5BF426B0074; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 07:06:14 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0206B0071 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 07:06:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin10.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23CEA4127B for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 12:06:14 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80168207868.10.4316E8E Received: from mail-pj1-f45.google.com (mail-pj1-f45.google.com [209.85.216.45]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1098180011 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 12:06:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f45.google.com with SMTP id w15-20020a17090a380f00b0021873113cb4so1493066pjb.0 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 04:06:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IAX5cjv3FV+pwILnpnHsO44lgFo9KZIJeSsheZZLVIg=; b=hvY1uDyL0ey9sUdH1VlAPTnxAQ6Z4wMH2cJPwB39IuOLSrbbwT6J/MPAr422yfgWLc 5WGaaaTTywlbrL3NoU1/EHsbe9MiwUOq2TpFeUEOQSN6X4ePtVOgRn294LHwnYb7ycL4 NoCmjKIE+2tOJjJFVlEattu1U1hGXPJL/ffS1GurdZM0VamAPKr9iWm7xyDk+vnh8JwP Uh86JffdWQSnDgAmeRDZ09uwsBEXgvcIFmqj+UvRb8SohnfsfpUTybWWgoLD0vcVLLHG Cu9aX1FLr0ptzWJLb3D212Mt5U+dTjKS3mucKL3wZALgrFmBOqqORl+JPrLHOX1MwMW8 O8zQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=IAX5cjv3FV+pwILnpnHsO44lgFo9KZIJeSsheZZLVIg=; b=W6ljtkJOwpLvCsssDE2FbJWl0z3uDtZLUu7yupmOYsyaRIa3Ld6+ZFYqal6KBTxkRj 2DfQNvtVpBCyXzAnuOND01xgodwDBYBhYwDaGOO5n7bwu2n4irVgGeXNcTac3g/yoA8v r/s+b5ZFthQEYrUPce7GF4T4mzJ9llpC1Ez1ttaoRyhAr2nt/NVrrEOa233U8onAl8N5 L9OMY9Cl+OvGbUCaIhIhxrx2tDiNfYxt0xXGdzU1L1C7AvtUm4UaejqW/tHbgTaU8eMP pWTVOwAvHyNEWYkpTON6c5ezrCtmxJLaBZ8deMF8BSKonT5Ri3/ePXA4v/sQ1QoKyOBb EG/g== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmhf6cWnT9b+aw8mNtsd2KuLbAc3oilwCjrnI1ZoYhD3msfrVWj M8cBznB7FInITfU3oAfog2uojictuJ//fA8g X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5pZO7aBuavuyzfuW0tbHgET6lLrCyFD/qydLNuN75Z1M9V0V9SMX2yq7hOSsMDdB81BXMWVg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2d8b:b0:202:f88d:587 with SMTP id sj11-20020a17090b2d8b00b00202f88d0587mr36177116pjb.232.1669291572617; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 04:06:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hyeyoo ([114.29.91.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s1-20020a625e01000000b0056cea9530b6sm1028976pfb.202.2022.11.24.04.06.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 24 Nov 2022 04:06:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 21:06:05 +0900 From: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Pekka Enberg , Roman Gushchin , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Matthew Wilcox , patches@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] mm, slub: don't create kmalloc-rcl caches with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY Message-ID: References: <20221121171202.22080-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <20221121171202.22080-7-vbabka@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1669291573; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=iJLARR0ZzG95zXxCb9gUhkY8m1ZlB1WFAPP+b2uSdD6WcLyQuu/ylfDPei2hmMZJbao+vj i18KDNybvUoD5lbN/wRV5p86wiSvULXnc+4Hw9nKJJoF8oxJxi9CCPuKduEr3qv7nT9KCZ fog1yrZf46KGEXCfQTflB0FkI9CGP3E= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=hvY1uDyL; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1669291573; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=IAX5cjv3FV+pwILnpnHsO44lgFo9KZIJeSsheZZLVIg=; b=z+76/vYRAlfJBcs4KgJLGiGXAWsJ1Twi4Fd1nAjgPlvbMtPGw2mvNwYbZC8nn3gvPciGhj If9tI4NcChxI8JDYLubgufx2pc7U1g1uejjGpuf9UlQ47Jqyj2HdkVT9bgzSjZlBhVmVl8 zQfUF7eWsJ6swqynSa3ykal+aWYkmc0= X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B1098180011 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=hvY1uDyL; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com X-Stat-Signature: fnrrrh6agrq791og3c6tb9eqm5rh1rc4 X-HE-Tag: 1669291573-947895 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 Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:53:43PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 11/21/22 18:11, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation > > by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory > > overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse, > > and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway. > > > > Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the > > regular ones. > > > > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka > > Fixed up in response to lkp report for a MEMCG_KMEM+SLUB_TINY combo: > ---8<--- > From c1ec0b924850a2863d061f316615d596176f15bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Vlastimil Babka > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:19:28 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH 06/12] mm, slub: don't create kmalloc-rcl caches with > CONFIG_SLUB_TINY > > Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation > by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory > overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse, > and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway. > > Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the > regular ones. > > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka > --- > include/linux/slab.h | 9 +++++++-- > mm/slab_common.c | 10 ++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h > index 45efc6c553b8..ae2d19ec8467 100644 > --- a/include/linux/slab.h > +++ b/include/linux/slab.h > @@ -336,12 +336,17 @@ enum kmalloc_cache_type { > #endif > #ifndef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM > KMALLOC_CGROUP = KMALLOC_NORMAL, > -#else > - KMALLOC_CGROUP, > #endif > +#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY > + KMALLOC_RECLAIM = KMALLOC_NORMAL, > +#else > KMALLOC_RECLAIM, > +#endif > #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA > KMALLOC_DMA, > +#endif > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM > + KMALLOC_CGROUP, > #endif > NR_KMALLOC_TYPES > }; Can you please elaborate what the lkp report was about and how you fixed it? I'm not getting what the problem of previous version is. > diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c > index a8cb5de255fc..907d52963806 100644 > --- a/mm/slab_common.c > +++ b/mm/slab_common.c > @@ -770,10 +770,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmalloc_size_roundup); > #define KMALLOC_CGROUP_NAME(sz) > #endif > > +#ifndef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY > +#define KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(sz) .name[KMALLOC_RECLAIM] = "kmalloc-rcl-" #sz, > +#else > +#define KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(sz) > +#endif > + > #define INIT_KMALLOC_INFO(__size, __short_size) \ > { \ > .name[KMALLOC_NORMAL] = "kmalloc-" #__short_size, \ > - .name[KMALLOC_RECLAIM] = "kmalloc-rcl-" #__short_size, \ > + KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(__short_size) \ > KMALLOC_CGROUP_NAME(__short_size) \ > KMALLOC_DMA_NAME(__short_size) \ > .size = __size, \ > @@ -859,7 +865,7 @@ void __init setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table(void) > static void __init > new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, enum kmalloc_cache_type type, slab_flags_t flags) > { > - if (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM) { > + if ((KMALLOC_RECLAIM != KMALLOC_NORMAL) && (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM)) { > flags |= SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT; > } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM) && (type == KMALLOC_CGROUP)) { > if (mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled()) { > -- > 2.38.1 > Otherwise looks fine to me. -- Thanks, Hyeonggon