On 08.03.23 10:03, Haifeng Xu wrote:
On 2023/3/7 10:48, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 10:36:55AM +0800, Haifeng Xu wrote:
On 2023/3/6 21:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 06.03.23 03:49, Haifeng Xu wrote:
mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize() has checked whether current memcg_in_oom is
set or not, so remove the check in handle_mm_fault().
"mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize() will returned immediately if memcg_in_oom is not set, so remove the check from handle_mm_fault()".
However, that requires now always an indirect function call -- do we care about dropping that optimization?
If memcg_in_oom is set, we will check it twice, one is from handle_mm_fault(), the other is from mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize(). That seems a bit redundant.
if memcg_in_oom is not set, mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize() returns directly. Though it's an indirect function call, but the time spent can be negligible
compare to the whole mm user falut preocess. And that won't cause stack overflow error.
I suggest you measure it.
test steps:
1) Run command: ./mmap_anon_test(global alloc, so the memcg_in_oom is not set)
2) Calculate the quotient of cost time and page-fault counts, run 10 rounds and average the results.
The test result shows that whether using indirect function call or not, the time spent in user fault
is almost the same, about 2.3ms.
I guess most of the benchmark time is consumed by allocating fresh pages
in your test (also, why exactly do you use MAP_SHARED?).
Is 2.3ms the total time for writing to that 1GiB of memory or how did
you derive that number? Posting both results would be cleaner (with more
digits ;) ).
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
