linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] tracing: add 'accounted' entry into output of allocation tracepoints

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: <YonH2AqfEFYKrUV2@n2.us-central1-a.c.spheric-algebra-350919.internal>
Date:   Sun, 22 May 2022 05:19:20 +0000
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To:     Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kernel@...nvz.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tracing: add 'accounted' entry into output of
 allocation tracepoints

On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 07:33:08AM +0300, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 5/22/22 06:51, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 09:36:54PM +0300, Vasily Averin wrote:
> >> Slab caches marked with SLAB_ACCOUNT force accounting for every
> >> allocation from this cache even if __GFP_ACCOUNT flag is not passed.
> >> Unfortunately, at the moment this flag is not visible in ftrace output,
> >> and this makes it difficult to analyze the accounted allocations.
> >>
> >> This patch adds boolean "accounted" entry into trace output,
> >> and set it to 'true' for calls used __GFP_ACCOUNT flag and
> >> for allocations from caches marked with SLAB_ACCOUNT.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>
> >> Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> > 
> > May I ask what information do you want to collect
> > using this patch?
> 
> I analyze ftrace output to understand which allocations are accounted.
> When some userspace operation consume memory, it's important to account
> most part of memory (>2/3 of all) to avoid misuse inside memcg-limited
> contianers. Otherwise memcg-limited container can consume significant 
> portion of host memory, trigger global OOM, wake up OOM-killer and kill
> random processes on host.
> If memory consumers are accounted, it leads to memcg-OOM only. 
> 
> Now kmem tracing output looks like this:
> 
> kmem_cache_alloc:     (getname_flags.part.0+0x2c) call_site=getname_flags.part.0+0x2c ptr=0xffff8fff022e9000 bytes_req=4096 bytes_alloc=4096 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL accounted=false
> kmalloc:              (alloc_bprm+0x32) call_site=alloc_bprm+0x32 ptr=0xffff8fff2b408a00 bytes_req=416 bytes_alloc=512 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO accounted=false
> kmem_cache_alloc:     (mm_alloc+0x16) call_site=mm_alloc+0x16 ptr=0xffff8fff0894d500 bytes_req=1048 bytes_alloc=1088 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL accounted=true
> mm_page_alloc:        page=0xffffffffa4ab8d42 pfn=0x12ad72 order=1 migratetype=0 gfp_flags=GFP_USER|__GFP_ZERO|__GFP_ACCOUNT
> kmem_cache_alloc:     (vm_area_alloc+0x1a) call_site=vm_area_alloc+0x1a ptr=0xffff8fff2af27000 bytes_req=200 bytes_alloc=200 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL accounted=true
> 
> As you can see, without new field it is quite hard to understand, 
> is last allocation accounted.
>
> This analyze helps me to identify most important allocations for given scenario
> and enable accounting for selected allocations.
> 
> An example of this analyze you can found here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/d28233ee-bccb-7bc3-c2ec-461fd7f95e6a@openvz.org/
> 

Thank you for detailed explanation. Makes sense to me.

> > If we decide to do that, it would be better to print
> > something like:
> > slab_flags=SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT|SLAB_ACCOUNT|SLAB_STORE_USER
> > instead of just printing 'accounted=true/false'. This patch is too
> > specific to SLAB_ACCOUNT.
> 
> Any extra output degrades performance.

No strong opinion but just a concern that maybe later someone want add
something similar like 'reclaimable=true/false', 'dma=true/false', ...
and I would prefer more general solution. (especially if we'll not
change tracepoints after release because of backward compatibility)

> For my task it's not important to know SLAB flags, I just need to understand,
> is current allocation accounted or not.

SLAB_ACCOUNT, SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT, SLAB_DMA, ... etc are SLAB flags.

'if current allocation is accounted or not' depends on SLAB_ACCOUNT
flag is set or not.

Thanks,
Hyeonggon

> > And if what you want to know is just total slab memory that is accounted,
> > what about adding something like  SlabAccounted in /proc/meminfo?
> 
> It is not enough for me. I need to have per-process allocation information.
> 
> Thank you,
> 	Vasily Averin