| 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: <84c7e816-f749-48d8-a429-8b0ef799cdbb@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:23:42 +0000
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc: joro@...tes.org, will@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines
On 2024-02-01 9:06 pm, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:56 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-02-01 7:30 pm, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>>> From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
>>>
>>> The magazine buffers can take gigabytes of kmem memory, dominating all
>>> other allocations. For observability prurpose create named slab cache so
>>> the iova magazine memory overhead can be clearly observed.
>>>
>>> With this change:
>>>
>>>> slabtop -o | head
>>> Active / Total Objects (% used) : 869731 / 952904 (91.3%)
>>> Active / Total Slabs (% used) : 103411 / 103974 (99.5%)
>>> Active / Total Caches (% used) : 135 / 211 (64.0%)
>>> Active / Total Size (% used) : 395389.68K / 411430.20K (96.1%)
>>> Minimum / Average / Maximum Object : 0.02K / 0.43K / 8.00K
>>>
>>> OBJS ACTIVE USE OBJ SIZE SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
>>> 244412 244239 99% 1.00K 61103 4 244412K iommu_iova_magazine
>>> 91636 88343 96% 0.03K 739 124 2956K kmalloc-32
>>> 75744 74844 98% 0.12K 2367 32 9468K kernfs_node_cache
>>>
>>> On this machine it is now clear that magazine use 242M of kmem memory.
>>
>> Hmm, something smells there...
>>
>> In the "worst" case there should be a maximum of 6 * 2 *
>> num_online_cpus() empty magazines in the iova_cpu_rcache structures,
>> i.e., 12KB per CPU. Under normal use those will contain at least some
>> PFNs, but mainly every additional magazine stored in a depot is full
>> with 127 PFNs, and each one of those PFNs is backed by a 40-byte struct
>> iova, i.e. ~5KB per 1KB magazine. Unless that machine has many thousands
>> of CPUs, if iova_magazine allocations are the top consumer of memory
>> then something's gone wrong.
>
> This is an upstream kernel + few drivers that is booted on AMD EPYC,
> with 128 CPUs.
>
> It has allocations stacks like these:
> init_iova_domain+0x1ed/0x230 iommu_setup_dma_ops+0xf8/0x4b0
> amd_iommu_probe_finalize.
> And also init_iova_domain() calls for Google's TPU drivers 242M is
> actually not that much, compared to the size of the system.
Hmm, I did misspeak slightly (it's late and I really should have left
this for tomorrow...) - that's 12KB per CPU *per domain*, but still that
would seem to imply well over 100 domains if you have 242MB of magazine
allocations while the iommu_iova cache isn't even on the charts... what
the heck is that driver doing?
(I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of the patch BTW, I just
really want to understand the situation that prompted it, and make sure
we don't actually have a subtle leak somewhere.)
Thanks,
Robin.
>
> Pasha
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/iommu/iova.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>>> index d30e453d0fb4..617bbc2b79f5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>>> @@ -630,6 +630,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(reserve_iova);
>>>
>>> #define IOVA_DEPOT_DELAY msecs_to_jiffies(100)
>>>
>>> +static struct kmem_cache *iova_magazine_cache;
>>> +static unsigned int iova_magazine_cache_users;
>>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
>>> +
>>> struct iova_magazine {
>>> union {
>>> unsigned long size;
>>> @@ -654,11 +658,51 @@ struct iova_rcache {
>>> struct delayed_work work;
>>> };
>>>
>>> +static int iova_magazine_cache_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
>>> +
>>> + iova_magazine_cache_users++;
>>> + if (iova_magazine_cache_users > 1)
>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>> +
>>> + iova_magazine_cache = kmem_cache_create("iommu_iova_magazine",
>>> + sizeof(struct iova_magazine),
>>> + 0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
>>> +
>>> + if (!iova_magazine_cache) {
>>> + pr_err("Couldn't create iova magazine cache\n");
>>> + ret = -ENOMEM;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> +out_unlock:
>>> + mutex_unlock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
>>> +
>>> + return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void iova_magazine_cache_fini(void)
>>> +{
>>> + mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
>>> +
>>> + if (WARN_ON(!iova_magazine_cache_users))
>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>> +
>>> + iova_magazine_cache_users--;
>>> + if (!iova_magazine_cache_users)
>>> + kmem_cache_destroy(iova_magazine_cache);
>>> +
>>> +out_unlock:
>>> + mutex_unlock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static struct iova_magazine *iova_magazine_alloc(gfp_t flags)
>>> {
>>> struct iova_magazine *mag;
>>>
>>> - mag = kmalloc(sizeof(*mag), flags);
>>> + mag = kmem_cache_alloc(iova_magazine_cache, flags);
>>> if (mag)
>>> mag->size = 0;
>>>
>>> @@ -667,7 +711,7 @@ static struct iova_magazine *iova_magazine_alloc(gfp_t flags)
>>>
>>> static void iova_magazine_free(struct iova_magazine *mag)
>>> {
>>> - kfree(mag);
>>> + kmem_cache_free(iova_magazine_cache, mag);
>>> }
>>>
>>> static void
>>> @@ -766,11 +810,17 @@ int iova_domain_init_rcaches(struct iova_domain *iovad)
>>> unsigned int cpu;
>>> int i, ret;
>>>
>>> + ret = iova_magazine_cache_init();
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> iovad->rcaches = kcalloc(IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE,
>>> sizeof(struct iova_rcache),
>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>> - if (!iovad->rcaches)
>>> + if (!iovad->rcaches) {
>>> + iova_magazine_cache_fini();
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> for (i = 0; i < IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE; ++i) {
>>> struct iova_cpu_rcache *cpu_rcache;
>>> @@ -948,6 +998,7 @@ static void free_iova_rcaches(struct iova_domain *iovad)
>>>
>>> kfree(iovad->rcaches);
>>> iovad->rcaches = NULL;
>>> + iova_magazine_cache_fini();
>>> }
>>>
>>> /*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists