linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 39/41] kernel/fork: throttle call_rcu() calls in vm_area

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: <CAJuCfpEAL9y70KJ_a=Z_kJpJnNC-ge1aN2ofTupeQ5-FaKh84g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 10:52:03 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, michel@...pinasse.org,
        jglisse@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.net,
        willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@...ibm.com,
        paulmck@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com,
        peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com,
        peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
        axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
        jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, tatashin@...gle.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com, gurua@...gle.com,
        arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com, hughlynch@...gle.com,
        leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/41] kernel/fork: throttle call_rcu() calls in vm_area_free

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 4:59 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon 09-01-23 12:53:34, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > call_rcu() can take a long time when callback offloading is enabled.
> > Its use in the vm_area_free can cause regressions in the exit path when
> > multiple VMAs are being freed. To minimize that impact, place VMAs into
> > a list and free them in groups using one call_rcu() call per group.
>
> After some more clarification I can understand how call_rcu might not be
> super happy about thousands of callbacks to be invoked and I do agree
> that this is not really optimal.
>
> On the other hand I do not like this solution much either.
> VM_AREA_FREE_LIST_MAX is arbitrary and it won't really help all that
> much with processes with a huge number of vmas either. It would still be
> in housands of callbacks to be scheduled without a good reason.
>
> Instead, are there any other cases than remove_vma that need this
> batching? We could easily just link all the vmas into linked list and
> use a single call_rcu instead, no? This would both simplify the
> implementation, remove the scaling issue as well and we do not have to
> argue whether VM_AREA_FREE_LIST_MAX should be epsilon or epsilon + 1.

Yes, I agree the solution is not stellar. I wanted something simple
but this is probably too simple. OTOH keeping all dead vm_area_structs
on the list without hooking up a shrinker (additional complexity) does
not sound too appealing either. WDYT about time domain throttling to
limit draining the list to say once per second like this:

void vm_area_free(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
       struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
       bool drain;

       free_anon_vma_name(vma);

       spin_lock(&mm->vma_free_list.lock);
       list_add(&vma->vm_free_list, &mm->vma_free_list.head);
       mm->vma_free_list.size++;
-       drain = mm->vma_free_list.size > VM_AREA_FREE_LIST_MAX;
+       drain = jiffies > mm->last_drain_tm + HZ;

       spin_unlock(&mm->vma_free_list.lock);

-       if (drain)
+       if (drain) {
              drain_free_vmas(mm);
+             mm->last_drain_tm = jiffies;
+       }
}

Ultimately we want to prevent very frequent call_rcu() calls, so
throttling in the time domain seems appropriate. That's the simplest
way I can think of to address your concern about a quick spike in VMA
freeing. It does not place any restriction on the list size and we
might have excessive dead vm_area_structs if after a large spike there
are no vm_area_free() calls but I don't know if that's a real problem,
so not sure we should be addressing it at this time. WDYT?


>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs