linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] lib: objpool added: ring-array based lockless MPMC

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: <7758687f-06c1-d9b2-077a-34e79925a339@bytedance.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 10:45:30 +0800
From:   "wuqiang.matt" <wuqiang.matt@...edance.com>
To:     "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com, naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sander@...nheule.net,
        ebiggers@...gle.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, jpoimboe@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...el.com, mattwu@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] lib: objpool added: ring-array based lockless
 MPMC

On 2023/10/16 07:26, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 00:06:11 +0800
> "wuqiang.matt" <wuqiang.matt@...edance.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2023/10/15 23:43, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 13:32:47 +0800
>>> "wuqiang.matt" <wuqiang.matt@...edance.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> objpool is a scalable implementation of high performance queue for
>>>> object allocation and reclamation, such as kretprobe instances.
>>>>
>>>> With leveraging percpu ring-array to mitigate hot spots of memory
>>>> contention, it delivers near-linear scalability for high parallel
>>>> scenarios. The objpool is best suited for the following cases:
>>>> 1) Memory allocation or reclamation are prohibited or too expensive
>>>> 2) Consumers are of different priorities, such as irqs and threads
>>>>
>>>> Limitations:
>>>> 1) Maximum objects (capacity) is fixed after objpool creation
>>>> 2) All pre-allocated objects are managed in percpu ring array,
>>>>      which consumes more memory than linked lists
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for updating! This looks good to me except 2 points.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> +
>>>> +/* initialize object pool and pre-allocate objects */
>>>> +int objpool_init(struct objpool_head *pool, int nr_objs, int object_size,
>>>> +		gfp_t gfp, void *context, objpool_init_obj_cb objinit,
>>>> +		objpool_fini_cb release)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int rc, capacity, slot_size;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* check input parameters */
>>>> +	if (nr_objs <= 0 || nr_objs > OBJPOOL_NR_OBJECT_MAX ||
>>>> +	    object_size <= 0 || object_size > OBJPOOL_OBJECT_SIZE_MAX)
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* align up to unsigned long size */
>>>> +	object_size = ALIGN(object_size, sizeof(long));
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* calculate capacity of percpu objpool_slot */
>>>> +	capacity = roundup_pow_of_two(nr_objs);
>>>
>>> This must be 'roundup_pow_of_two(nr_objs + 1)' because if nr_objs is power
>>> of 2 and all objects are pushed on the same slot, tail == head. This
>>> means empty and full is the same.
>>
>> That won't happen. Would tail and head wrap only when >= 2^32. When all
>> objects are pushed to the same slot, tail will be (head + capacity).
> 
> Ah, indeed. OK.
> 
>>
>>>
>>>> +	if (!capacity)
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* initialize objpool pool */
>>>> +	memset(pool, 0, sizeof(struct objpool_head));
>>>> +	pool->nr_cpus = nr_cpu_ids;
>>>> +	pool->obj_size = object_size;
>>>> +	pool->capacity = capacity;
>>>> +	pool->gfp = gfp & ~__GFP_ZERO;
>>>> +	pool->context = context;
>>>> +	pool->release = release;
>>>> +	slot_size = pool->nr_cpus * sizeof(struct objpool_slot);
>>>> +	pool->cpu_slots = kzalloc(slot_size, pool->gfp);
>>>> +	if (!pool->cpu_slots)
>>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* initialize per-cpu slots */
>>>> +	rc = objpool_init_percpu_slots(pool, nr_objs, context, objinit);
>>>> +	if (rc)
>>>> +		objpool_fini_percpu_slots(pool);
>>>> +	else
>>>> +		refcount_set(&pool->ref, pool->nr_objs + 1);
>>>> +
>>>> +	return rc;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(objpool_init);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +/* drop unused objects and defref objpool for releasing */
>>>> +void objpool_fini(struct objpool_head *pool)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	void *obj;
>>>> +
>>>> +	do {
>>>> +		/* grab object from objpool and drop it */
>>>> +		obj = objpool_pop(pool);
>>>> +
>>>> +		/*
>>>> +		 * drop reference of objpool anyway even if
>>>> +		 * the obj is NULL, since one extra ref upon
>>>> +		 * objpool was already grabbed during pool
>>>> +		 * initialization in objpool_init()
>>>> +		 */
>>>> +		if (refcount_dec_and_test(&pool->ref))
>>>> +			objpool_free(pool);
>>>
>>> Nit: you can call objpool_drop() instead of repeating the same thing here.
>>
>> objpool_drop won't deref objpool if given obj is NULL. But here we need
>> drop objpool anyway even if obj is NULL.
> 
> I guess you decrement for the 'objpool' itself if obj=NULL, but I think
> it is a bit hacky (so you added the comment).
> e.g. rethook is doing something like below.
> 
> ---
> /* extra count for this pool itself */
> count = 1;
> /* make the pool empty */
> while (objpool_pop(pool))
> 	count++;
> 
> if (refcount_sub_and_test(count, &pool->ref))
> 	objpool_free(pool);
> ---

Right, that's reasonable. Better one single atomic operation than multiple.

>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>>> +	} while (obj);
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(objpool_fini);
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.40.1
>>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your time
>>
>>
> 
>