linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] debugobjects: scale the static pool size

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:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:12:36 -0500
From:   Qian Cai <cai@....us>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debugobjects: scale the static pool size



> On Nov 20, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/20/2018 01:42 AM, Qian Cai wrote:
>> The current value of the early boot static pool size is not big enough
>> for systems with large number of CPUs with timer or/and workqueue
>> objects selected. As the results, systems have 60+ CPUs with both timer
>> and workqueue objects enabled could trigger "ODEBUG: Out of memory.
>> ODEBUG disabled". Hence, fixed it by computing it according to
>> CONFIG_NR_CPUS and CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_* options.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@....us>
>> ---
>> lib/debugobjects.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/lib/debugobjects.c b/lib/debugobjects.c
>> index 70935ed91125..372dc34206d5 100644
>> --- a/lib/debugobjects.c
>> +++ b/lib/debugobjects.c
>> @@ -23,7 +23,53 @@
>> #define ODEBUG_HASH_BITS	14
>> #define ODEBUG_HASH_SIZE	(1 << ODEBUG_HASH_BITS)
>> 
>> +/*
>> + * Some debug objects are allocated during the early boot. Enabling some
>> + * options like timers or workqueue objects may increase the size required
>> + * significantly with large number of CPUs. For example,
>> + *
>> + * No. CPUs x 2 (worker pool) objects:
>> + *
>> + * start_kernel
>> + *   workqueue_init_early
>> + *     init_worker_pool
>> + *       init_timer_key
>> + *         debug_object_init
>> + *
>> + * No. CPUs objects (CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS):
>> + *
>> + * sched_init
>> + *   hrtick_rq_init
>> + *     hrtimer_init
>> + *
>> + * CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_WORK:
>> + * No. CPUs x 6 (workqueue) objects:
>> + *
>> + * workqueue_init_early
>> + *   alloc_workqueue
>> + *     __alloc_workqueue_key
>> + *       alloc_and_link_pwqs
>> + *         init_pwq
>> + *
>> + * Also, plus No. CPUs objects:
>> + *
>> + * perf_event_init
>> + *    __init_srcu_struct
>> + *      init_srcu_struct_fields
>> + *        init_srcu_struct_nodes
>> + *          __init_work
>> + *
>> + * Increase the number a bit more in case the implmentatins are changed in
>> + * the future.
>> + */
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_NR_CPUS) && defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_TIMERS) && \
>> +!defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_WORK)
>> +#define ODEBUG_POOL_SIZE	(CONFIG_NR_CPUS * 10)
>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_NR_CPUS) && defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_WORK)
>> +#define ODEBUG_POOL_SIZE	(CONFIG_NR_CPUS * 30)
>> +#else
>> #define ODEBUG_POOL_SIZE	1024
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_NR_CPUS */
>> #define ODEBUG_POOL_MIN_LEVEL	256
>> 
> 
> CONFIG_NR_CPUS is always defined. You don't need to put that as a #if
> condition. Where does the scaling factor 30 come from? It looks high to me.

Hmm, looks like some architectures could have it undefined since it depends
on CONFIG_SMP where the later can be disabled. For example alpha,

config NR_CPUS
        int "Maximum number of CPUs (2-32)"
        range 2 32
        depends on SMP

Scaling factor 30 came from the data, with all the debug_objects options
enabled, I have,

64-CPU:   ODEBUG: 1114 of 1114 active objects replaced
256-CPU: ODEBUG: 4378 of 4378 active objects replaced

I also give a bit room for growth in the future since the implementation details
could always change.

> 
> For UP system, CONFIG_NR_CPUS will be 1. I think it is better to have a
> guarantee minimum plus a multiplier of the # of configured CPUs.
> Something like
> 
> 512 + CONFIG_NR_CPUS * <multiplier>
> 
> where <multiplier> should be the sum of all early allocation objects
> that scale with the number of cpus. The guarantee minimum will cover
> other miscellaneous objects.

That is a good catch. I’ll fix that.