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:	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:07:26 +0300
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	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, Jan 28, 2015 at 01:57:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 19:22:49 +0300 Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com> wrote:
> > @@ -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?

Because currently __kmem_cache_shrink is only called just from a couple
of places, each of which isn't supposed to have a great stack depth
AFAIU, namely:

- slab_mem_going_offline_callback - MEM_GOING_OFFLINE handler
- shrink_store - invoked upon write to /sys/kernel/slab/cache/shrink
- acpi_os_purge_cache - only called on acpi init
- memcg_deactivate_kmem_caches - called from cgroup_destroy_wq

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

We could, but kmem_cache_shrink would cope with fragmentation less
efficiently.

Come to think of it, do we really need to optimize slab placement in
kmem_cache_shrink? None of its users except shrink_store expects it -
they just want to purge the cache before destruction, that's it. May be,
we'd better move slab placement optimization to a separate SLUB's
private function that would be called only by shrink_store, where we can
put up with kmalloc failures? Christoph, what do you think?

Thanks,
Vladimir
--
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/