linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm v2 1/3] slub: never fail to shrink cache

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

Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:57:52 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm v2 1/3] slub: never fail to shrink cache

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 19:22:49 +0300 Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com> wrote:

> SLUB's version of __kmem_cache_shrink() not only removes empty slabs,
> but also tries to rearrange the partial lists to place slabs filled up
> most to the head to cope with fragmentation. To achieve that, it
> allocates a temporary array of lists used to sort slabs by the number of
> objects in use. If the allocation fails, the whole procedure is aborted.
> 
> This is unacceptable for the kernel memory accounting extension of the
> memory cgroup, where we want to make sure that kmem_cache_shrink()
> successfully discarded empty slabs. Although the allocation failure is
> utterly unlikely with the current page allocator implementation, which
> retries GFP_KERNEL allocations of order <= 2 infinitely, it is better
> not to rely on that.
> 
> This patch therefore makes __kmem_cache_shrink() allocate the array on
> stack instead of calling kmalloc, which may fail. The array size is
> chosen to be equal to 32, because most SLUB caches store not more than
> 32 objects per slab page. Slab pages with <= 32 free objects are sorted
> using the array by the number of objects in use and promoted to the head
> of the partial list, while slab pages with > 32 free objects are left in
> the end of the list without any ordering imposed on them.
> 
> ...
>
> @@ -3375,51 +3376,56 @@ int __kmem_cache_shrink(struct kmem_cache *s)
>  	struct kmem_cache_node *n;
>  	struct page *page;
>  	struct page *t;
> -	int objects = oo_objects(s->max);
> -	struct list_head *slabs_by_inuse =
> -		kmalloc(sizeof(struct list_head) * objects, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	LIST_HEAD(discard);
> +	struct list_head promote[SHRINK_PROMOTE_MAX];

512 bytes of stack.  The call paths leading to __kmem_cache_shrink()
are many and twisty.  How do we know this isn't a problem?

The logic behind choosing "32" sounds rather rubbery.  What goes wrong
if we use, say, "4"?

--
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/