linux-kernel - RE: [lustre-devel] LIBCFS

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]

Message-ID: <9cb85b423527448db721927a35974317@EXCHCS32.ornl.gov>
Date:	Thu, 2 Jul 2015 22:25:41 +0000
From:	"Simmons, James A." <simmonsja@...l.gov>
To:	'Julia Lawall' <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
CC:	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	"'Dan Carpenter'" <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	"lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org" <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: RE: [lustre-devel] LIBCFS_ALLOC


>> >Yeah.  You're right.  Doing a vmalloc() when kmalloc() doesn't have even
>> >a tiny sliver of RAM isn't going to work.  It's easier to use
>> >libcfs_kvzalloc() everywhere, but it's probably the wrong thing.
>>
>> The original  reason we have the vmalloc water mark wasn't so much the
>> issue of memory exhaustion but to handle the case of memory fragmentation.
>> Some sites had after a extended period of time started to see failures of
>> allocating even 32K using kmalloc.  In our latest development branch we moved
>> away from using a water mark to always try kmalloc first and if it fails then we
>> try vmalloc. At ORNL we ran into severe performance issues when we entered
>> vmalloc territory. It has been discussed before on what might replace vmalloc
>> handling in the case of kmalloc fails but no solution has been worked out.
>
>OK, but if a structure contains only 4 words, would it be better to just
>use kzalloc?  Or does it not matter?  It would only save trying vmalloc in
>a case that it is guaranteed to fail, but if a structure with 4 words
>can't be allocated, the system has other problems.  Another argument is
>that kzalloc is a well known function that people and bug-finding tools
>understand, so it is better to use it whenever possible.
>
>Some of the other structures contain a lot more fields, as well as small
>arrays.  They are probably acceptable for kzalloc too, but I wouldn't know
>the exact dividing line.

The reason I bring this up is to discuss sorting this out. Once long ago we had
just  LIBCFS_ALLOC. For some reason before my time OBD_ALLOC got spawned
off of that.  Currently LIBCFS_ALLOC is used just by the libcfs/LNet layer. Now 
OBD_ALLOC in our development branch has moved to a try kmalloc first and 
if it fails try vmalloc for any size memory allocation.  LIBCFS_ALLOC still does the
original approach.   So we have two possible solutions depending on if libcfs/LNet
needs to ever do a vmalloc.

One solution if libcfs/LNet never needs a vmalloc is remove LIBCFS_ALLOC and replace
it with kzalloc everywhere. We can then move libcfs_kzvalloc to the lustre layer and
port the change we did in the development branch to here of the try kmalloc then
vmalloc approach. 

The other approach is if libcfs/LNet does in some case need to use vmalloc we could 
then update LIBCFS_ALLOC to first try kmalloc then vmalloc. Once this is implemented
we can nuke the OBD_ALLOC system.

Either way I like to see it consolidated down to one system.
--
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/