linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/13] tracing: Rename kvfree_rcu() to kvfree_rcu

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: <58092759-d563-46ce-980a-329497e1fc8c@paulmck-laptop>
Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:12:38 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>,
        Bryan Tan <bryantan@...are.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@...il.com>,
        Ariel Levkovich <lariel@...dia.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] tracing: Rename kvfree_rcu() to
 kvfree_rcu_mightsleep()

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 09:56:53AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:16:37 +0100
> Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
> > > index ef8ed3b65d05..e6037752dcf0 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
> > > @@ -256,6 +256,7 @@ struct trace_probe {
> > >  struct event_file_link {
> > >  	struct trace_event_file		*file;
> > >  	struct list_head		list;
> > > +	struct rcu_head			rcu;
> > >  };
> > >  
> > >  static inline bool trace_probe_test_flag(struct trace_probe *tp,
> > >  
> > struct foo_a {
> >   int a;
> >   int b;
> > };
> 
> Most machines today are 64 bits, even low end machines.
> 
>  struct foo_a {
> 	long long a;
> 	long long b;
>  };
> 
> is more accurate. That's 16 bytes.
> 
> Although it is more likely off because list_head is a double pointer. But
> let's just go with this, as the amount really doesn't matter here.
> 
> > 
> > your obj size is 8 byte
> > 
> > struct foo_b {
> >   struct rcu_head rcu;
> 
> Isn't rcu_head defined as;
> 
> struct callback_head {
>         struct callback_head *next;
>         void (*func)(struct callback_head *head);
> } __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(void *))));
> #define rcu_head callback_head
> 
> Which makes it 8 not 16 on 32 bit as well?
> 
> >   int a;
> >   int b;
> > };
> 
> So it should be 8 + 8 = 16, on 32 bit and 16 + 16 = 32 on 64bit.
> 
> > 
> > now it becomes 16 + 8 = 24 bytes. In reallity a foo_b object
> > will be 32 bytes since there is no slab for 24 bytes:
> > 
> > <snip>
> >   kmalloc-32         19840  19840     32  128    1 : tunables    0    0    0 : slabdata    155    155      0
> >   kmalloc-16         28857  28928     16  256    1 : tunables    0    0    0 : slabdata    113    113      0
> >   kmalloc-8          37376  37376      8  512    1 : tunables    0    0    0 : slabdata     73     73      0
> > <snip>
> > 
> > if we allocate 512 objects of foo_a it would be 4096 bytes
> > in case of foo_b it is 24 * 512 = 12228 bytes.
> 
> This is for probe events. We usually allocate 1, maybe 2. Oh, some may even
> allocate 100 to be crazy. But each probe event is in reality much larger
> (1K perhaps) as each one allocates dentry's, inodes, etc. So 8 or 16 bytes
> extra is still lost in the noise.

Agreed, in this case, there is almost no penalty for adding an rcu_head
structure to the probe event...

> > single argument will give you 4096 + 512 * 8 = 8192 bytes
> > int terms of memory consumtion.
> 
> If someone allocate 512 instances, that would be closer to a meg in size
> without this change. 8k is probably less than 1%
> 
> > 
> > And double argument will not give you better performance comparing
> > with a single argument.
> 
> It will, because it will no longer have to allocate anything if need be.
> Note, when it doesn't allocate the system is probably mostly idle and we
> don't care about performance, but when it needs allocation, that's likely a
> time when performance is a bit more important.

... and also agreed that there are performance benefits to doing so,
especially under OOM conditions.

							Thanx, Paul