linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] improve vmalloc allocation

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: <20181022165253.uphv3xzqivh44o3d@pc636>
Date:   Mon, 22 Oct 2018 18:52:53 +0200
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] improve vmalloc allocation

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 02:51:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> I haven't read through the implementation yet but I have say that I
> really love this cover letter. It is clear on intetion, it covers design
> from high level enough to start discussion and provides a very nice
> testing coverage. Nice work!
> 
> I also think that we need a better performing vmalloc implementation
> long term because of the increasing number of kvmalloc users.
> 
> I just have two mostly workflow specific comments.
> 
> > A test-suite patch you can find here, it is based on 4.18 kernel.
> > ftp://vps418301.ovh.net/incoming/0001-mm-vmalloc-stress-test-suite-v4.18.patch
> 
> Can you fit this stress test into the standard self test machinery?
> 
If you mean "tools/testing/selftests", then i can fit that as a kernel module.
But not all the tests i can trigger from kernel module, because 3 of 8 tests
use __vmalloc_node_range() function that is not marked as EXPORT_SYMBOL.

> > It is fixed by second commit in this series. Please see more description in
> > the commit message of the patch.
> 
> Bug fixes should go first and new functionality should be built on top.
>
Thanks for the good point.

> A kernel crash sounds serious enough to have a fix marked for stable. If
> the fix is too hard/complex then we might consider a revert of the
> faulty commit.
>
The fix is straightforward and easy. It adds a threshold passing which we
forbid cond_resched_lock() and continue draining of lazy pages.

> >
> > 3) This one is related to PCPU allocator(see pcpu_alloc_test()). In that
> > stress test case i see that SUnreclaim(/proc/meminfo) parameter gets increased,
> > i.e. there is a memory leek somewhere in percpu allocator. It sounds like
> > a memory that is allocated by pcpu_get_vm_areas() sometimes is not freed.
> > Resulting in memory leaking or "Kernel panic":
> > 
> > ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Out of memory and no killable processes...
> 
> It would be great to pin point this one down before the rework as well.
> 
Actually it has been fixed recently. Roman Gushchin pointed to the:

6685b357363b ("percpu: stop leaking bitmap metadata blocks")

i have checked, it works fine and fixes a leak i see.

Thank you!

--
Vlad Rezki

> Thanks a lot!
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs