linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: append __GFP_COMP flag for trace

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, 27 Apr 2021 12:11:17 +0800
From:   Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...com>, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org,
        rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: append __GFP_COMP flag for trace_malloc

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:36 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:29:32AM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:54 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:43:20AM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> > > > From: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
> > > >
> > > > When calling kmalloc_order, the flags should include __GFP_COMP here,
> > > > so that trace_malloc can trace the precise flags.
> > >
> > > I suppose that depends on your point of view.
> > Correct.
> >
> > Should we report the
> > > flags used by the caller, or the flags that we used to allocate memory?
> > > And why does it matter?
> > When I capture kmem:kmalloc events on my env with perf:
> > (perf record -p my_pid -e kmem:kmalloc)
> > I got the result below:
> >      0.08%  call_site=ffffffff851d0cb0 ptr=0xffff8c04a4ca0000
> > bytes_req=10176 bytes_alloc=16384
> > gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
>
> Hmm ... if you have a lot of allocations about this size, that would
> argue in favour of adding a kmem_cache of 10880 [*] bytes.  That way,
> we'd get 3 allocations per 32kB instead of 2.
I understand you. But I don't think our process needs this size. This size
may be a bug in our code or somewhere, I don't know the RC for now.

> [*] 32768 / 3, rounded down to a 64 byte cacheline
>
> But I don't understand why this confused you.  Your caller at
> ffffffff851d0cb0 didn't specify __GFP_COMP.  I'd be more confused if
> this did report __GFP_COMP.
>
I just wanted to save some time when debugging.

Regards