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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230119195503.GY2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 11:55:03 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, 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, 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 11:47:36AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:20 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 10:52:03AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > Just to double-check, we really did try the very frequent call_rcu()
> > invocations and we really did see a problem, correct?
> 
> Correct. More specifically with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y we saw
> regressions when a process exits and all its VMAs get destroyed,
> causing a flood of call_rcu()'s.

Thank you for the reminder, real problem needs solution.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> > Although it is not perfect, call_rcu() is designed to take a fair amount
> > of abuse.  So if we didn't see a real problem, the frequent call_rcu()
> > invocations might be a bit simpler.