linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] slab: introduce the flag SLAB_MINIMIZE

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804171135190.18801@nuc-kabylake>
Date:   Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:38:02 -0500 (CDT)
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
cc:     Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] slab: introduce the flag SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> On 04/17/2018 04:45 PM, Christopher Lameter wrote:

> > But then higher order allocs are generally seen as problematic.
>
> I think in this case they are better than wasting/fragmenting 384kB for
> 640kB object.

Well typically we have suggested that people use vmalloc in the past.


> > Note that SLUB will fall back to smallest order already if a failure
> > occurs so increasing slub_max_order may not be that much of an issue.
> >
> > Maybe drop the max order limit completely and use MAX_ORDER instead?
>
> For packing, sure. For performance, please no (i.e. don't try to
> allocate MAX_ORDER for each and every cache).

No of course not. We would have to modify the order selection on kmem
cache creation.

> > That
> > means that callers need to be able to tolerate failures.
>
> Is it any different from now? I suppose there would still be
> smallest-order fallback involved in sl*b itself? And if your allocation
> is so large it can fail even with the fallback (i.e. >= costly order),
> you need to tolerate failures anyway?

Failures can occur even with < costly order as far as I can telkl. Order 0
is the only safe one.

> One corner case I see is if there is anyone who would rather use their
> own fallback instead of the space-wasting smallest-order fallback.
> Maybe we could map some GFP flag to indicate that.

Well if you have a fallback then maybe the slab allocator should not fall
back on its own but let the caller deal with it.