linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling

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: <CAJuCfpGmc==xztXgiM+UUA5GGhxstB2r=yTjNUwSshaj5FpBFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 May 2023 20:33:28 -0700
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        vbabka@...e.cz, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, mgorman@...e.de,
        dave@...olabs.net, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
        corbet@....net, void@...ifault.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        x86@...nel.org, peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com,
        axboe@...nel.dk, mcgrof@...nel.org, masahiroy@...nel.org,
        nathan@...nel.org, dennis@...nel.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
        rppt@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
        yosryahmed@...gle.com, yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        hughd@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        ndesaulniers@...gle.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        ebiggers@...gle.com, ytcoode@...il.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com,
        penberg@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com,
        glider@...gle.com, elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, songmuchun@...edance.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
        rientjes@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 7:25 PM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 01:14:57PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 1:00 PM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > Another related question. So, the reason for macro'ing stuff is needed is
> > > because you want to print the line directly from kernel, right?
> >
> > The main reason is because we want to inject a code tag at the
> > location of the call. If we have a code tag injected at every
> > allocation call, then finding the allocation counter (code tag) to
> > operate takes no time.
> >
> > > Is that
> > > really necessary? Values from __builtin_return_address() can easily be
> > > printed out as function+offset from kernel which already gives most of the
> > > necessary information for triaging and mapping that back to source line from
> > > userspace isn't difficult. Wouldn't using __builtin_return_address() make
> > > the whole thing a lot simpler?
> >
> > If we do that we have to associate that address with the allocation
> > counter at runtime on the first allocation and look it up on all
> > following allocations. That introduces the overhead which we are
> > trying to avoid by using macros.
>
> I see. I'm a bit skeptical about the performance angle given that the hot
> path can be probably made really cheap even with lookups. In most cases,
> it's just gonna be an extra pointer deref and a few more arithmetics. That
> can show up in microbenchmarks but it's not gonna be much. The benefit of
> going that route would be the tracking thing being mostly self contained.

I'm in the process of rerunning the tests to compare the overhead on
the latest kernel but I don't expect that to be cheap compared to
kmalloc().

>
> That said, it's nice to not have to worry about allocating tracking slots
> and managing hash table, so no strong opinion.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@...roid.com.
>