linux-kernel - Re: High kmalloc-32 slab cache consumption with 10k containers

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:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 15:49:23 +0300
From:   Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To:     bharata@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: High kmalloc-32 slab cache consumption with 10k containers

On 07.04.2021 14:47, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 01:07:27PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>> Here is how the calculation turns out to be in my setup:
>>>
>>> Number of possible NUMA nodes = 2
>>> Number of mounts per container = 7 (Check below to see which are these)
>>> Number of list creation requests per mount = 2
>>> Number of containers = 10000
>>> memcg_nr_cache_ids for 10k containers = 12286
>>
>> Luckily, we have "+1" in memcg_nr_cache_ids formula: size = 2 * (id + 1).
>> In case of we only multiplied it, you would have to had memcg_nr_cache_ids=20000.
> 
> Not really, it would grow like this for size = 2 * id
> 
> id 0 size 4
> id 4 size 8
> id 8 size 16
> id 16 size 32
> id 32 size 64
> id 64 size 128
> id 128 size 256
> id 256 size 512
> id 512 size 1024
> id 1024 size 2048
> id 2048 size 4096
> id 4096 size 8192
> id 8192 size 16384
> 
> Currently (size = 2 * (id + 1)), it grows like this:
> 
> id 0 size 4
> id 4 size 10
> id 10 size 22
> id 22 size 46
> id 46 size 94
> id 94 size 190
> id 190 size 382
> id 382 size 766
> id 766 size 1534
> id 1534 size 3070
> id 3070 size 6142
> id 6142 size 12286

Oh, thanks, I forgot what power of two is :)
 
>>
>> Maybe, we need change that formula to increase memcg_nr_cache_ids more accurate
>> for further growths of containers number. Say,
>>
>> size = id < 2000 ? 2 * (id + 1) : id + 2000
> 
> For the above, it would only be marginally better like this:
> 
> id 0 size 4
> id 4 size 10
> id 10 size 22
> id 22 size 46
> id 46 size 94
> id 94 size 190
> id 190 size 382
> id 382 size 766
> id 766 size 1534
> id 1534 size 3070
> id 3070 size 5070
> id 5070 size 7070
> id 7070 size 9070
> id 9070 size 11070
> 
> All the above numbers are for 10k memcgs.

I mean the number of containers bigger then your 10000.