linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] IB/mlx5: Reduce max order of memory allocated for xlt update

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]

Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:07:56 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Praveen Kumar Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>
Cc:     leon@...nel.org, dledford@...hat.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rajesh.sivaramasubramaniom@...cle.com,
        rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com, aruna.ramakrishna@...cle.com,
        jeffery.yoder@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] IB/mlx5: Reduce max order of memory allocated for xlt
 update

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 01:09:01PM +0000, Praveen Kumar Kannoju wrote:
> To update xlt (during mlx5_ib_reg_user_mr()), the driver can request up to
> 1 MB (order-8) memory, depending on the size of the MR. This costly
> allocation can sometimes take very long to return (a few seconds),
> especially if the system is fragmented and does not have any free chunks
> for orders >= 3. This causes the calling application to hang for a long
> time. To avoid these long latency spikes, limit max order of allocation to
> order 3, and reuse that buffer to populate_xlt() for that MR. This will
> increase the latency slightly (in the order of microseconds) for each
> mlx5_ib_update_xlt() call, especially for larger MRs (since were making
> multiple calls to populate_xlt()), but its a small price to pay to avoid
> the large latency spikes with higher order allocations. The flag
> __GFP_NORETRY is used while fetching the free pages to ensure that there
> are no long compaction stalls when the system's memory is in fragmented
> condition.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Praveen Kumar Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@...cle.com>
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 22 +++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> index db05b0e..dac19f0 100644
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> @@ -1004,9 +1004,7 @@ static struct mlx5_ib_mr *alloc_cacheable_mr(struct ib_pd *pd,
>  	return mr;
>  }
>  
> -#define MLX5_MAX_UMR_CHUNK ((1 << (MLX5_MAX_UMR_SHIFT + 4)) - \
> -			    MLX5_UMR_MTT_ALIGNMENT)
> -#define MLX5_SPARE_UMR_CHUNK 0x10000
> +#define MLX5_SPARE_UMR_CHUNK 0x8000
>  
>  /*
>   * Allocate a temporary buffer to hold the per-page information to transfer to
> @@ -1028,30 +1026,16 @@ static void *mlx5_ib_alloc_xlt(size_t *nents, size_t ent_size, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  	 */
>  	might_sleep();
>  
> -	gfp_mask |= __GFP_ZERO;
> +	gfp_mask |= __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_NORETRY;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * If the system already has a suitable high order page then just use
> -	 * that, but don't try hard to create one. This max is about 1M, so a
> -	 * free x86 huge page will satisfy it.
> -	 */
>  	size = min_t(size_t, ent_size * ALIGN(*nents, xlt_chunk_align),
> -		     MLX5_MAX_UMR_CHUNK);
> +		     MLX5_SPARE_UMR_CHUNK);
>  	*nents = size / ent_size;
>  	res = (void *)__get_free_pages(gfp_mask | __GFP_NOWARN,
>  				       get_order(size));
>  	if (res)
>  		return res;
>  
> -	if (size > MLX5_SPARE_UMR_CHUNK) {
> -		size = MLX5_SPARE_UMR_CHUNK;
> -		*nents = get_order(size) / ent_size;
> -		res = (void *)__get_free_pages(gfp_mask | __GFP_NOWARN,
> -					       get_order(size));
> -		if (res)
> -			return res;
> -	}

Why did you delete this and make the size smaller? Isn't GFP_NORETRY
enough?

Jason