linux-kernel - Re: increased vmap_area_lock contentions on "n_tty: Move buffers into n_tty

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5244B36B.1050505@hurleysoftware.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:21:31 -0400
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: increased vmap_area_lock contentions on "n_tty: Move buffers
 into n_tty_data"

On 09/26/2013 05:58 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:42:52 -0400 Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/26/2013 02:05 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:35:32 -0400 Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The issue with a single large kmalloc is that it may fail where
>>>> 3 separate, page-or-less kmallocs would not have.
>>>
>>> Or vmalloc fails first, because of internal fragmentation of the vmap
>>> arena.  This problem plus vmalloc's slowness are the reasons why
>>> vmalloc should be avoided.
>>
>> Ok, no vmalloc.
>>
>>> A tremendous number of places in the kernel perform higher-order
>>> allocations nowadays.  The page allocator works damn hard to service
>>> them and I expect that switching to kmalloc here will be OK.
>>
>> I've had order-4 allocation failures before on 10Gb.
>
> Yep.  But this allocation will be order=2, yes?  And
> PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER=3.  So if that thing is working correctly,
> order=2 will do a lot better than order=4.

PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER was a subtlety I wasn't aware of; thanks
for the info.

>> In fact, the
>> nouveau driver switched to vmalloc for that very reason (commit
>> d005f51eb93d71cd40ebd11dd377453fa8c8a42a, drm/nouveau: use vmalloc
>> for pgt allocation).
>
> Sigh.  I'm not aware of any reports of anyone hitting arena
> fragmentation problems yet, so it remains a theoretical thing.  But the
> more we use vmalloc, the more likely it becomes.  And because the usage
> sites are so disparate, fixing it will be pretty horrid.
>
> For this reason (plus vmalloc is slow), I do think it's better to do
> the old
>
> 	foo = kmalloc(__GFP_NOWARN);
> 	if (!foo)
> 		foo = vmalloc();
>
> thing.  It's ugly, but will greatly reduce the amount of vmallocing
> which happens.
>
> Someone had a patch a while back which wraps this operation (and the
> corresponding free) into library functions.  I said yuk and it wasn't
> merged.  Perhaps that was a mistake.

I would suggest either
1. documenting the bulk of our conversation in either/both
    mm/vmalloc.c:vmalloc() and include/linux/slab.h
or
2. require that new vmalloc() users get your ack.

Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/