Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1424744
| From | Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] mm/page_owner: use stackdepot to store stacktrace |
| Date | 2016-06-17 09:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rKWo1-3vB-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rCTnj-te-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rCTnk-te-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rH3ep-5FP-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:56:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 26-05-16 11:37:54, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> > > > > Currently, we store each page's allocation stacktrace on corresponding > > page_ext structure and it requires a lot of memory. This causes the problem > > that memory tight system doesn't work well if page_owner is enabled. > > Moreover, even with this large memory consumption, we cannot get full > > stacktrace because we allocate memory at boot time and just maintain > > 8 stacktrace slots to balance memory consumption. We could increase it > > to more but it would make system unusable or change system behaviour. > > > > To solve the problem, this patch uses stackdepot to store stacktrace. > > It obviously provides memory saving but there is a drawback that > > stackdepot could fail. > > > > stackdepot allocates memory at runtime so it could fail if system has > > not enough memory. But, most of allocation stack are generated at very > > early time and there are much memory at this time. So, failure would not > > happen easily. And, one failure means that we miss just one page's > > allocation stacktrace so it would not be a big problem. In this patch, > > when memory allocation failure happens, we store special stracktrace > > handle to the page that is failed to save stacktrace. With it, user > > can guess memory usage properly even if failure happens. > > > > Memory saving looks as following. (4GB memory system with page_owner) > > I still have troubles to understand your numbers > > > static allocation: > > 92274688 bytes -> 25165824 bytes > > I assume that the first numbers refers to the static allocation for the > given amount of memory while the second one is the dynamic after the > boot, right? No, first number refers to the static allocation before the patch and second one is for after the patch. > > > dynamic allocation after kernel build: > > 0 bytes -> 327680 bytes > > And this is the additional dynamic allocation after the kernel build. This is the additional dynamic allocation after booting + the kernel build. (before the patch -> after the patch) > > total: > > 92274688 bytes -> 25493504 bytes > > > > 72% reduction in total. > > > > Note that implementation looks complex than someone would imagine because > > there is recursion issue. stackdepot uses page allocator and page_owner > > is called at page allocation. Using stackdepot in page_owner could re-call > > page allcator and then page_owner. That is a recursion. To detect and > > avoid it, whenever we obtain stacktrace, recursion is checked and > > page_owner is set to dummy information if found. Dummy information means > > that this page is allocated for page_owner feature itself > > (such as stackdepot) and it's understandable behavior for user. > > > > v2: > > o calculate memory saving with including dynamic allocation > > after kernel build > > o change maximum stacktrace entry size due to possible stack overflow > > > > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> > > Other than the small remark below I haven't spotted anything wrong and > I like the approach. > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Thanks. > > --- > > include/linux/page_ext.h | 4 +- > > lib/Kconfig.debug | 1 + > > mm/page_owner.c | 138 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > > 3 files changed, 122 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > > [...] > > @@ -7,11 +7,18 @@ > > #include <linux/page_owner.h> > > #include <linux/jump_label.h> > > #include <linux/migrate.h> > > +#include <linux/stackdepot.h> > > + > > #include "internal.h" > > > > This is still 128B of the stack which is a lot in the allocation paths > so can we add something like > > /* > * TODO: teach PAGE_OWNER_STACK_DEPTH (__dump_page_owner and save_stack) > * to use off stack temporal storage > */ > > +#define PAGE_OWNER_STACK_DEPTH (16) Will add. Thanks.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] mm/page_owner: use stackdepot to store stacktrace Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> - 2016-06-17 09:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] mm/page_owner: use stackdepot to store stacktrace Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-06-17 12:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] mm/page_owner: use stackdepot to store stacktrace Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> - 2016-06-20 09:00 +0200
csiph-web