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]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51323CAC581 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 19:08:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9CC548E0002; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 15:08:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 97CF48E0001; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 15:08:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 86B488E0002; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 15:08:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7193D8E0001 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 15:08:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1586F855C4 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 19:08:10 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83867018340.02.4DF9850 Received: from out-178.mta0.migadu.com (out-178.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.178]) by imf30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4740B80003 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 19:08:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf30.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=F83k32kO; spf=pass (imf30.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeel.butt@linux.dev designates 91.218.175.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeel.butt@linux.dev; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1757358488; 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:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=QGp9LNECER4PONZr9C/fe03oMsJEOgr+safV7HEdOq8=; b=C1KhUGVQocCQB6zhMMuwlv7W9Sxw5mYrTr/K6+EApFry0ZAW6sQlujp+MZxgalnJMKnG4j uHtJiSTpCYRDI1pOdgyX5vDOBDL9z+XWpVyjZQTUQg+rb37/4whrpPJ/sQ6pzeB6SVh/P/ onxhAL/0cDGhxe2i4AfUAEnEBDwhrWA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf30.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=F83k32kO; spf=pass (imf30.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeel.butt@linux.dev designates 91.218.175.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeel.butt@linux.dev; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1757358488; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=vchZwWNLIT2+y+/lvO6ZP3/WrwFWSK/PacW/xg6gUd0B351dGeHE54DFyfNdJwxGDD9H4W ydbQIT1ohrtoGya13RAiFxqXNYS6kqBuX05GpoGayn9DpAWgosCb/zaPeZLv3cg8ab5b+j 7y48nfSQdS5l0sKzTNTuaPWf7/Z6MqE= Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:07:57 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1757358483; h=from:from: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:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QGp9LNECER4PONZr9C/fe03oMsJEOgr+safV7HEdOq8=; b=F83k32kO1p358K6H++eGircDmUq+XCZC/aspVKfnFaMPaxp8/t0SQcFIkN/dOImro4LmKB zaJDIlMFITlhwcR5N09VvQvIZI2Kf39xcTmnxRzBw1+81IsdJ7bSptr8GUi4zzeQBHH3F5 KjlsBkB4qS+4o2IpWTm3uIGTlTSje+Y= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Shakeel Butt To: Suren Baghdasaryan Cc: Kent Overstreet , Michal Hocko , Yueyang Pan , Usama Arif , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sourav Panda , Pasha Tatashin , Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] Try to add memory allocation info for cgroup oom kill Message-ID: References: <6qu2uo3d2msctkkz5slhx5piqtt64wsvkgkvjjpd255k7nrds4@qtffskmesivg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Stat-Signature: znfc67tr95jdhjqeoizf84u64773db3i X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4740B80003 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-HE-Tag: 1757358486-925061 X-HE-Meta: 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 a8wBHYo9 k3c6Gzcdtks5tL+L9ljFyPoXZqhNG2M8m1GLVxlW/Wuz8aqGdVUWsF/qfnj8JmE7Ffaojc3n2j5D5MpUWy7Oybgymo5VFhJsAMrNash4R4gT+QThMBAQdUZxEfAYTUY48uCAo792NDWDybkcOfkz3bcrwU7Bl75y9co/H6BxO0Gthot0Y3aij3gccGoxBHj3Jxp54ZatoprtIjQkvBqjLWY7xJEPOnK7bJ714A5GygP+oWU8= 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: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 10:49 AM Kent Overstreet > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 10:47:06AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 10:34 AM Kent Overstreet > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think that got the memcg people looking at ways to make the accounting > > > > cheaper, but I'm not sure if anything landed from that. > > > > > > Yes, Roman landed a series of changes reducing the memcg accounting overhead. > > > > Do you know offhand how big that was? > > I'll need to dig it up but it was still much higher than memory profiling. What benchmark/workload was used to compare memcg accounting and memory profiling?