| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 13:37:10 +0000
From: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To: "chenjun (AM)" <chenjun102@...wei.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>,
"penberg@...nel.org" <penberg@...nel.org>,
"rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"iamjoonsoo.kim@....com" <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"xuqiang (M)" <xuqiang36@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm/slub: Reduce memory consumption in extreme scenarios
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 07:16:49AM +0000, chenjun (AM) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for reply.
>
> 在 2023/3/7 22:20, Hyeonggon Yoo 写道:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 08:28:11AM +0000, Chen Jun wrote:
> >> If call kmalloc_node with NO __GFP_THISNODE and node[A] with no memory.
> >> Slub will alloc a slub page which is not belong to A, and put the page
> >> to kmem_cache_node[page_to_nid(page)]. The page can not be reused
> >> at next calling, because NULL will be get from get_partical().
> >> That make kmalloc_node consume more memory.
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > elaborating a little bit:
> >
> > "When kmalloc_node() is called without __GFP_THISNODE and the target node
> > lacks sufficient memory, SLUB allocates a folio from a different node other
> > than the requested node, instead of taking a partial slab from it.
> >
> > However, since the allocated folio does not belong to the requested node,
> > it is deactivated and added to the partial slab list of the node it
> > belongs to.
> >
> > This behavior can result in excessive memory usage when the requested
> > node has insufficient memory, as SLUB will repeatedly allocate folios from
> > other nodes without reusing the previously allocated ones.
> >
> > To prevent memory wastage, take a partial slab from a different node when
> > the requested node has no partial slab and __GFP_THISNODE is not explicitly
> > specified."
> >
>
> Thanks, This is more clear than what I described.
>
> >> On qemu with 4 numas and each numa has 1G memory, Write a test ko
> >> to call kmalloc_node(196, 0xd20c0, 3) for 5 * 1024 * 1024 times.
> >>
> >> cat /proc/slabinfo shows:
> >> kmalloc-256 4302317 15151808 256 32 2 : tunables..
> >>
> >> the total objects is much more then active objects.
> >>
> >> After this patch, cat /prac/slubinfo shows:
> >> kmalloc-256 5244950 5245088 256 32 2 : tunables..
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Jun <chenjun102@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >> mm/slub.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
> >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> >> index 39327e98fce3..c0090a5de54e 100644
> >> --- a/mm/slub.c
> >> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> >> @@ -2384,7 +2384,7 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, int node, struct partial_context
> >> searchnode = numa_mem_id();
> >>
> >> object = get_partial_node(s, get_node(s, searchnode), pc);
> >> - if (object || node != NUMA_NO_NODE)
> >> + if (object || (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && (pc->flags & __GFP_THISNODE)))
> >> return object;
> >
> > I think the problem here is to avoid taking a partial slab from
> > different node than the requested node even if __GFP_THISNODE is not set.
> > (and then allocating new slab instead)
> >
> > Thus this hunk makes sense to me,
> > even if SLUB currently do not implement __GFP_THISNODE semantics.
> >
> >> return get_any_partial(s, pc);
> >> @@ -3069,6 +3069,7 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
> >> struct slab *slab;
> >> unsigned long flags;
> >> struct partial_context pc;
> >> + int try_thisndoe = 0;
> >>
> >>
> >> stat(s, ALLOC_SLOWPATH);
> >>
> >> @@ -3181,8 +3182,12 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
> >> }
> >>
> >> new_objects:
> >> -
> >> pc.flags = gfpflags;
> >> +
> >> + /* Try to get page from specific node even if __GFP_THISNODE is not set */
> >> + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !(gfpflags & __GFP_THISNODE) && try_thisnode)
> >> + pc.flags |= __GFP_THISNODE;
> >> +
> >> pc.slab = &slab;
> >> pc.orig_size = orig_size;
> >> freelist = get_partial(s, node, &pc);
> >> @@ -3190,10 +3195,16 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
> >> goto check_new_slab;
> >>
> >> slub_put_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
> >> - slab = new_slab(s, gfpflags, node);
> >> + slab = new_slab(s, pc.flags, node);
> >> c = slub_get_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
> >>
> >> if (unlikely(!slab)) {
> >> + /* Try to get page from any other node */
> >> + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !(gfpflags & __GFP_THISNODE) && try_thisnode) {
> >> + try_thisnode = 0;
> >> + goto new_objects;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> slab_out_of_memory(s, gfpflags, node);
> >> return NULL;
> >
> > But these hunks do not make sense to me.
> > Why force __GFP_THISNODE even when the caller did not specify it?
> >
> > (Apart from the fact that try_thisnode is defined as try_thisndoe,
> > and try_thisnode is never set to nonzero value.)
>
> My mistake， It should be:
> int try_thisnode = 0;
I think it should be try_thisnode = 1?
Otherwise it won't be executed at all.
Also bool type will be more readable than int.
>
> >
> > IMHO the first hunk is enough to solve the problem.
>
> I think, we should try to alloc a page on the target node before getting
> one from other nodes' partial.
You are right.
Hmm then the new behavior when
(node != NUMA_NO_NODE) && (gfpflags & __GFP_THISNODE) is:
1) try to get a partial slab from target node with __GFP_THISNODE
2) if 1) failed, try to allocate a new slab from target node with __GFP_THISNODE
3) if 2) failed, retry 1) and 2) without __GFP_THISNODE constraint
when node != NUMA_NO_NODE || (gfpflags & __GFP_THISNODE), the behavior
remains unchanged.
It does not look that crazy to me, although it complicates the code
a little bit. (Vlastimil may have some opinions?)
Now that I understand your intention, I think this behavior change also
need to be added to the commit log.
Thanks,
Hyeonggon
> If the caller does not specify __GFP_THISNODE, we add __GFP_THISNODE to
> try to get the slab only on the target node. If it fails, use the
> original GFP FLAG to allow fallback.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists