linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v0] mm/slub: Let number of online CPUs determine the slub page order

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: <81424d71-c479-4c4a-de14-0a9b3f636e23@suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 12:04:01 +0100
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, guro@...com,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v0] mm/slub: Let number of online CPUs determine the
 slub page order

On 1/27/21 10:10 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Will Deacon wrote:
> 
>> > Hm, but booting the secondaries is just a software (kernel) action? They are
>> > already physically there, so it seems to me as if the cpu_present_mask is not
>> > populated correctly on arm64, and it's just a mirror of cpu_online_mask?
>>
>> I think the present_mask retains CPUs if they are hotplugged off, whereas
>> the online mask does not. We can't really do any better on arm64, as there's
>> no way of telling that a CPU is present until we've seen it.
> 
> The order of each page in a kmem cache --and therefore also the number
> of objects in a slab page-- can be different because that information is
> stored in the page struct.
> 
> Therefore it is possible to retune the order while the cache is in operaton.

Yes, but it's tricky to do the retuning safely, e.g. if freelist randomization
is enabled, see [1].

But as a quick fix for the regression, the heuristic idea could work reasonably
on all architectures?
- if num_present_cpus() is > 1, trust that it doesn't have the issue such as
arm64, and use it
- otherwise use nr_cpu_ids

Long-term we can attempt to do the retuning safe, or decide that number of cpus
shouldn't determine the order...

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/d7fb9425-9a62-c7b8-604d-5828d7e6b1da@suse.cz/

> This means you can run an initcall after all cpus have been brought up to
> set the order and number of objects in a slab page differently.
> 
> The older slab pages will continue to exist with the old orders until they
> are freed.
>