linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: system_heap: avoid reclaim for order 4

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, 25 Jan 2023 18:56:46 +0900
From:   Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...sung.com>
To:     "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@...gle.com>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
CC:     Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...sung.com>,
        "sumit.semwal@...aro.org" <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        "daniel.vetter@...ll.ch" <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "mhocko@...nel.org" <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jaewon31.kim@...il.com" <jaewon31.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: system_heap: avoid reclaim for order 4

> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:54 PM John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 12:31 AM Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...sung.com> wrote:
> > > > Using order 4 pages would be helpful for many IOMMUs, but it could spend
> > > > quite much time in page allocation perspective.
> > > >
> > > > The order 4 allocation with __GFP_RECLAIM may spend much time in
> > > > reclaim and compation logic. __GFP_NORETRY also may affect. These cause
> > > > unpredictable delay.
> > > >
> > > > To get reasonable allocation speed from dma-buf system heap, use
> > > > HIGH_ORDER_GFP for order 4 to avoid reclaim.
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this!
> > The case where the allocation gets stuck behind reclaim under pressure
> > does sound undesirable, but I'd be a bit hesitant to tweak numbers
> > that have been used for a long while (going back to ion) without a bit
> > more data.
> >
> > It might be good to also better understand the tradeoff of potential
> > on-going impact to performance from using low order pages when the
> > buffer is used.  Do you have any details like or tests that you could
> > share to help ensure this won't impact other users?
> >
> > TJ: Do you have any additional thoughts on this?
> >
> I don't have any data on how often we hit reclaim for mid order
> allocations. That would be interesting to know. However the 70th
> percentile of system-wide buffer sizes while running the camera on my
> phone is still only 1 page, so it looks like this change would affect
> a subset of use-cases.
> 
> Wouldn't this change make it less likely to get an order 4 allocation
> (under memory pressure)? The commit message makes me think the goal of
> the change is to get more of them.

Hello John Stultz

I've been waiting for your next reply.

With my commit, we may gather less number of order 4 pages and fill the 
requested size with more number of order 0 pages. I think, howerver, stable
allocation speed is quite important so that corresponding user space
context can move on within a specific time.

Not only compaction but reclaim also, I think, would be invoked more if the 
__GFP_RECLAIM is added on order 4. I expect the reclaim could be decreased
if we move to order 0.

Thank you
Jaewon Kim

> 
> Actually with the low order being 0, I don't think __GFP_COMP makes
> sense in LOW_ORDER_GFP. But I guess that flag isn't harmful there.
> 
> > thanks
> > -john