linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] rcu/kvfree: Prevents cache growing when the backoff_page_cache

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: <PH0PR11MB58805AC5772BECAF65AD4365DA9B9@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:18:20 +0000
From:   "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
CC:     "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "joel@...lfernandes.org" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "qiang.zhang1211@...il.com" <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
        "rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] rcu/kvfree: Prevents cache growing when the
 backoff_page_cache_fill is set

> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 11:11:37PM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> > >>On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 06:37:53AM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 08:12:38AM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> > > > Currently, in kfree_rcu_shrink_scan(), the drain_page_cache() is
> > > > executed before kfree_rcu_monitor() to drain page cache, if the bnode
> > > > structure's->gp_snap has done, the kvfree_rcu_bulk() will fill the
> > > > page cache again in kfree_rcu_monitor(), this commit add a check
> > > > for krcp structure's->backoff_page_cache_fill in put_cached_bnode(),
> > > > if the krcp structure's->backoff_page_cache_fill is set, prevent page
> > > > cache growing.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 ++
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > index 9cc0a7766fd2..f25430ae1936 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > @@ -2907,6 +2907,8 @@ static inline bool
> > > >  put_cached_bnode(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp,
> > > >  	struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *bnode)
> > > >  {
> > > > +	if (atomic_read(&krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill))
> > > > +		return false;
> > > >  	// Check the limit.
> > > >  	if (krcp->nr_bkv_objs >= rcu_min_cached_objs)
> > > >  		return false;
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.32.0
> > > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > >
> > >Thank you both!
> > >
> > >One question, though.  Might it be better to instead modify the "for"
> > >loop in fill_page_cache_func() to start at krcp->nr_bkv_objs instead
> > >of starting at zero?  That way, we still provide a single page under
> > >low-memory conditions, but provide rcu_min_cached_objs of them if memory
> > >is plentiful.
> > >
> > >Alternatively, if we really don't want to allow any pages at all under
> > >low-memory conditions, shouldn't the fill_page_cache_func() set nr_pages
> > >to zero (instead of the current 1) when the krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill
> > >flag is set?  
> > 
> > Hi, Paul
> > 
> > If the krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill is true, the put_cached_bnode () return false,
> > the allocated single page will also be freed in fill_page_cache_func().
> > 
> > or it would be better not to allocate under memory pressure.
> 
> That was my thought.  ;-)
> 
> > How about like this?
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 9cc0a7766fd2..94aedbc3da36 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -2907,6 +2907,8 @@ static inline bool
> >  put_cached_bnode(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp,
> >         struct kvfree_rcu_bulk_data *bnode)
> >  {
> > +       if (atomic_read(&krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill))
> > +               return false;
> >         // Check the limit.
> >         if (krcp->nr_bkv_objs >= rcu_min_cached_objs)
> >                 return false;
> > @@ -3220,7 +3222,7 @@ static void fill_page_cache_func(struct work_struct *work)
> >         int i;
> > 
> >         nr_pages = atomic_read(&krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill) ?
> > -               1 : rcu_min_cached_objs;
> > +               0 : rcu_min_cached_objs;
> > 
> >         for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> 
> The other question is why this loop does not allow for any pages
> that might already be allocated, thus perhaps looking like this:
> 
> 		for (i = krcp->nr_bkv_objs; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> 
> Or do we somehow know that krcp->nr_bkv_objs is equal to zero?  (I am not
> seeing this, but I do feel the need to ask.)
> 
>Usually we start from zero, this is when a ptr. was not added into
>a bulk array, due to no memory reason for a single argument and no
>cache pages anymore for double argument.
>
>In the fill page function, the limit is checked by the put_cached_bnode() itself
>so it stops prefetch once nr_bkv_objs contains desired value.
>

If the krcp->nr_bkv_objs is updated in kfree_rcu_work() and happens before invoke fill_page_cache_func(),
when invoke fill_page_cache_func(), we start from zero,  will allocate page and hold krcp->lock,
fill krcp->bkvcache,  but if krcp->nr_bkv_objs already equal to rcu_min_cached_objs,  this page will
be freed and exit loop,  this allocate page seems like a meaningless operation. 

I also want to ask if starting from krcp->nr_bkv_objs is necessary?


Thanks
Zqiang

>
>--
>Uladzislau Rezki