| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <74880f3c7c1e4d9fa6691ece991c931f@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 02:15:51 +0000
From: "chenjun (AM)" <chenjun102@...wei.com>
To: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.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
在 2023/3/8 21:37, Hyeonggon Yoo 写道:
> 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;
>>>> +
Any suggestions to make the change more elegant?
>>>> 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.
>
I will add it.
> 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.
>
If there are no other questions, I will send an official patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists