linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm, slab: move memcg charging to post-alloc hook

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]

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:34:02 -0700
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm, slab: move memcg charging to post-alloc hook

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 11:55:04AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 3/12/24 19:52, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 06:07:08PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> The MEMCG_KMEM integration with slab currently relies on two hooks
> >> during allocation. memcg_slab_pre_alloc_hook() determines the objcg and
> >> charges it, and memcg_slab_post_alloc_hook() assigns the objcg pointer
> >> to the allocated object(s).
> >>
> >> As Linus pointed out, this is unnecessarily complex. Failing to charge
> >> due to memcg limits should be rare, so we can optimistically allocate
> >> the object(s) and do the charging together with assigning the objcg
> >> pointer in a single post_alloc hook. In the rare case the charging
> >> fails, we can free the object(s) back.
> >>
> >> This simplifies the code (no need to pass around the objcg pointer) and
> >> potentially allows to separate charging from allocation in cases where
> >> it's common that the allocation would be immediately freed, and the
> >> memcg handling overhead could be saved.
> >>
> >> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=whYOOdM7jWy5jdrAm8LxcgCMFyk2bt8fYYvZzM4U-zAQA@mail.gmail.com/
> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> > 
> > Nice cleanup, Vlastimil!
> > Couple of small nits below, but otherwise, please, add my
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> >>  	/*
> >>  	 * The obtained objcg pointer is safe to use within the current scope,
> >>  	 * defined by current task or set_active_memcg() pair.
> >>  	 * obj_cgroup_get() is used to get a permanent reference.
> >>  	 */
> >> -	struct obj_cgroup *objcg = current_obj_cgroup();
> >> +	objcg = current_obj_cgroup();
> >>  	if (!objcg)
> >>  		return true;
> >>  
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * slab_alloc_node() avoids the NULL check, so we might be called with a
> >> +	 * single NULL object. kmem_cache_alloc_bulk() aborts if it can't fill
> >> +	 * the whole requested size.
> >> +	 * return success as there's nothing to free back
> >> +	 */
> >> +	if (unlikely(*p == NULL))
> >> +		return true;
> > 
> > Probably better to move this check up? current_obj_cgroup() != NULL check is more
> > expensive.
> 
> It probably doesn't matter in practice anyway, but my thinking was that
> *p == NULL is so rare (the object allocation failed) it shouldn't matter
> that we did current_obj_cgroup() uselessly in case it happens.
> OTOH current_obj_cgroup() returning NULL is not that rare (?) so it
> could be useful to not check *p in those cases?

I see... Hm, I'd generally expect a speculative execution of the second check
anyway (especially with an unlikely() hint for the first one), and because as
you said p == NULL is almost never true, the additional cost is zero.
But the same is true otherwise, so it really doesn't matter that much.
Thanks for explaining your logic, it wasn't obvious to me.