lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: cma: support sysfs
From
Date
On 2/4/21 9:17 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
...
>>>> Presumably, having the source code, you can easily deduce that a bluetooth
>>>> allocation failure goes directly to a CMA allocation failure, right?
>>
>> Still wondering about this...
>
> It would work if we have full source code and stack are not complicated for
> every usecases. Having said, having a good central place automatically
> popped up is also beneficial for not to add similar statistics for each
> call sites.
>
> Why do we have too many item in slab sysfs instead of creating each call
> site inventing on each own?
>

I'm not sure I understand that question fully, but I don't think we need to
invent anything unique here. So far we've discussed debugfs, sysfs, and /proc,
none of which are new mechanisms.

...

>> It's actually easier to monitor one or two simpler items than it is to monitor
>> a larger number of complicated items. And I get the impression that this is
>> sort of a top-level, production software indicator.
>
> Let me clarify one more time.
>
> What I'd like to get ultimately is per-CMA statistics instead of
> global vmstat for the usecase at this moment. Global vmstat
> could help the decision whether I should go deeper but it ends up
> needing per-CMA statistics. And I'd like to keep them in sysfs,
> not debugfs since it should be stable as a telemetric.
>
> What points do you disagree in this view?


No huge disagreements, I just want to get us down to the true essential elements
of what is required--and find a good home for the data. Initial debugging always
has excesses, and those should not end up in the more carefully vetted production
code.

If I were doing this, I'd probably consider HugeTLB pages as an example to follow,
because they have a lot in common with CMA: it's another memory allocation pool, and
people also want to monitor it.

HugeTLB pages and THP pages are monitored in /proc:
/proc/meminfo and /proc/vmstat:

# cat meminfo |grep -i huge
AnonHugePages: 88064 kB
ShmemHugePages: 0 kB
FileHugePages: 0 kB
HugePages_Total: 500
HugePages_Free: 500
HugePages_Rsvd: 0
HugePages_Surp: 0
Hugepagesize: 2048 kB
Hugetlb: 1024000 kB

# cat vmstat | grep -i huge
nr_shmem_hugepages 0
nr_file_hugepages 0
nr_anon_transparent_hugepages 43
numa_huge_pte_updates 0

...aha, so is CMA:

# cat vmstat | grep -i cma
nr_free_cma 261718

# cat meminfo | grep -i cma
CmaTotal: 1048576 kB
CmaFree: 1046872 kB

OK, given that CMA is already in those two locations, maybe we should put
this information in one or both of those, yes?


thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-05 06:51    [W:0.089 / U:2.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site