linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] vmalloc enhancements

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190214003848.GA4898@tower.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:38:54 +0000
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guroan@...il.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] vmalloc enhancements

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:34:09PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:47:24 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:56:45AM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > The patchset contains few changes to the vmalloc code, which are
> > > leading to some performance gains and code simplification.
> > > 
> > > Also, it exports a number of pages, used by vmalloc(),
> > > in /proc/meminfo.
> > > 
> > > Patch (1) removes some redundancy on __vunmap().
> > > Patch (2) separates memory allocation and data initialization
> > >   in alloc_vmap_area()
> > > Patch (3) adds vmalloc counter to /proc/meminfo.
> > > 
> > > v2->v1:
> > >   - rebased on top of current mm tree
> > >   - switch from atomic to percpu vmalloc page counter
> > 
> > I don't understand what prompted this change to percpu counters.
> > 
> > All writers already write vmap_area_lock and vmap_area_list, so it's
> > not really saving much. The for_each_possible_cpu() for /proc/meminfo
> > on the other hand is troublesome.
> 
> percpu_counters would fit here.  They have probably-unneeded locking
> but I expect that will be acceptable.
> 
> And they address the issues with for_each_possible_cpu() avoidance, CPU
> hotplug and transient negative values.

Using existing vmap_area_lock (as Johannes suggested) is also problematic,
due to different life-cycles of vma_areas and vmalloc pages. A special flag
will be required to decrease the counter during the lazy deletion of
vmap_areas. Allocation path will require passing a bool flag through too many
nested functions. Also it will be semi-accurate, which is probably tolerable.
So, it's doable, but doesn't look nice to me.

So, using a simple per-cpu counter still seems to best option.
Transient negative value is a valid concern, but easily fixable.
Are there any other? What's the problem with for_each_possible_cpu()?
Reading /proc/meminfo is not that hot, no?

Thanks!