On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 09:34:13AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 08:59:31PM +0900, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 12:44:14PM +0300, Vasily Averin wrote: > > > dSlab caches marked with SLAB_ACCOUNT force accounting for every > > > allocation from this cache even if __GFP_ACCOUNT flag is not passed. > > > Unfortunately, at the moment this flag is not visible in ftrace output, > > > and this makes it difficult to analyze the accounted allocations. > > > > > > This patch adds the __GFP_ACCOUNT flag for allocations from slab caches > > > marked with SLAB_ACCOUNT to the ftrace output > > > --- > > > v2: > > > 1) handle kmem_cache_alloc_node() too, thanks to Shakeel > > > 2) rework kmem_cache_alloc* tracepoints to use cachep instead > > > of current cachep->*size parameters. Now kmalloc[_node] and > > > kmem_cache_alloc[_node] tracepoints do not use common template > > > > > > NB: kmem_cache_alloc_node tracepoint in SLOB cannot be switched to cachep, > > > therefore it was replaced by kmalloc_node tracepoint. > > > --- > > > VvS: is this acceptable? Maybe I should split this patch? > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > include/trace/events/kmem.h | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > > mm/slab.c | 7 +--- > > > mm/slab_common.c | 7 ++-- > > > mm/slob.c | 10 ++--- > > > mm/slub.c | 6 +-- > > > 5 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/trace/events/kmem.h b/include/trace/events/kmem.h > > > index 71c141804222..3b4f96e4a607 100644 > > > --- a/include/trace/events/kmem.h > > > +++ b/include/trace/events/kmem.h > > > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ > > > #include <linux/tracepoint.h> > > > #include <trace/events/mmflags.h> > > > > > > -DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(kmem_alloc, > > > +TRACE_EVENT(kmalloc, > > > > > > TP_PROTO(unsigned long call_site, > > > const void *ptr, > > > @@ -43,23 +43,41 @@ DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(kmem_alloc, > > > show_gfp_flags(__entry->gfp_flags)) > > > ); > > > > > > -DEFINE_EVENT(kmem_alloc, kmalloc, > > > +TRACE_EVENT(kmem_cache_alloc, > > > > > > - TP_PROTO(unsigned long call_site, const void *ptr, > > > - size_t bytes_req, size_t bytes_alloc, gfp_t gfp_flags), > > > + TP_PROTO(unsigned long call_site, > > > + const void *ptr, > > > + struct kmem_cache *s, > > > + gfp_t gfp_flags), > > > > > > - TP_ARGS(call_site, ptr, bytes_req, bytes_alloc, gfp_flags) > > > -); > > > + TP_ARGS(call_site, ptr, s, gfp_flags), > > > > > > -DEFINE_EVENT(kmem_alloc, kmem_cache_alloc, > > > + TP_STRUCT__entry( > > > + __field( unsigned long, call_site ) > > > + __field( const void *, ptr ) > > > + __field( size_t, bytes_req ) > > > + __field( size_t, bytes_alloc ) > > > + __field( unsigned long, gfp_flags ) > > > + ), > > > > > > - TP_PROTO(unsigned long call_site, const void *ptr, > > > - size_t bytes_req, size_t bytes_alloc, gfp_t gfp_flags), > > > + TP_fast_assign( > > > + __entry->call_site = call_site; > > > + __entry->ptr = ptr; > > > + __entry->bytes_req = s->object_size; > > > + __entry->bytes_alloc = s->size; > > > + __entry->gfp_flags = (__force unsigned long)gfp_flags | > > > + (s->flags & SLAB_ACCOUNT ? __GFP_ACCOUNT : 0); > > > + ), > > > > This is a bit of lie. SLAB_ACCOUNT is not a gfp flag. > > Alternatively we can add an explicit "accounted" boolean entry, > which will be set to true if the SLAB_ACCOUNT slab cache flag or > the __GFP_ACCOUNT gfp flag is present. Or what about adding something like SlabAccounted or MemAccounted in /proc/meminfo if what he want to know is total amount of memory accounted? -- Thanks, Hyeonggon
