linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] binder_alloc: replace kcalloc with kvcalloc to mitigate OOM issues

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: <39eaba63-0e18-439a-82ac-834505e6473e@vivo.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:01:39 +0800
From: Lei Liu <liulei.rjpt@...o.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
 Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>, Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
 Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 opensource.kernel@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binder_alloc: replace kcalloc with kvcalloc to mitigate
 OOM issues

On 2024/6/12 17:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 04:56:28PM +0800, Lei Liu wrote:
>
>> In binder_alloc, there is a frequent need for order3 memory 
>> allocation, especially on small-memory mobile devices, which can lead 
>> to OOM and cause foreground applications to be killed, resulting in 
>> flashbacks. We use kvcalloc to allocate memory, which can reduce 
>> system OOM occurrences, as well as decrease the time and probability 
>> of failure for order3 memory allocations. Additionally, it can also 
>> improve the throughput of binder (as verified by Google's 
>> binder_benchmark testing tool). We have conducted multiple tests on 
>> an 8GB memory phone, and the performance of kvcalloc is better. Below 
>> is a partial excerpt of the test data. throughput = (size * 
>> Iterations)/Time Benchmark-kvcalloc Time CPU Iterations 
>> throughput(Gb/s) 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> BM_sendVec_binder-4096 30926 ns 20481 ns 34457 4563.66↑ 
>> BM_sendVec_binder-8192 42667 ns 30837 ns 22631 4345.11↑ 
>> BM_sendVec_binder-16384 67586 ns 52381 ns 13318 3228.51↑ 
>> BM_sendVec_binder-32768 116496 ns 94893 ns 7416 2085.97↑ 
>> BM_sendVec_binder-65536 265482 ns 209214 ns 3530 871.40↑ 
>> Benchmark-kvcalloc Time CPU Iterations throughput(Gb/s) 
> Both benchmarks are the same? Or is this labeled incorrectly?
I'm really sorry, I got the title of the table wrong, here are the 
updated data:
throughput = (size * Iterations)/Time
kvcalloc->kvmalloc:
Benchmark-kvcalloc    Time    CPU    Iterations    throughput(Gb/s)
----------------------------------------------------------------
BM_sendVec_binder-4096    30926 ns    20481 ns    34457    4563.66↑
BM_sendVec_binder-8192    42667 ns    30837 ns    22631    4345.11↑
BM_sendVec_binder-16384    67586 ns    52381 ns    13318    3228.51↑
BM_sendVec_binder-32768    116496 ns    94893 ns    7416    2085.97↑
BM_sendVec_binder-65536    265482 ns    209214 ns    3530    871.40↑

kcalloc->kmalloc
Benchmark-kcalloc    Time    CPU    Iterations    throughput(Gb/s)
----------------------------------------------------------------
BM_sendVec_binder-4096    39070 ns    24207 ns    31063    3256.56
BM_sendVec_binder-8192    49476 ns    35099 ns    18817    3115.62
BM_sendVec_binder-16384    76866 ns    58924 ns    11883    2532.86
BM_sendVec_binder-32768    134022 ns    102788 ns    6535    1597.78
BM_sendVec_binder-65536    281004 ns    220028 ns    3135    731.14
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> BM_sendVec_binder-4096 39070 ns 24207 ns 31063 3256.56 
>> BM_sendVec_binder-8192 49476 ns 35099 ns 18817 3115.62 
>> BM_sendVec_binder-16384 76866 ns 58924 ns 11883 2532.86 
>> BM_sendVec_binder-32768 134022 ns 102788 ns 6535 1597.78 
>> BM_sendVec_binder-65536 281004 ns 220028 ns 3135 731.14 
>> Signed-off-by: Lei Liu <liulei.rjpt@...o.com> --- 
>> drivers/android/binder_alloc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 
>> insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git 
>> a/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c b/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c 
>> index 2e1f261ec5c8..5dcab4a5e341 100644 --- 
>> a/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c +++ b/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c 
>> @@ -836,7 +836,7 @@ int binder_alloc_mmap_handler(struct binder_alloc 
>> *alloc, alloc->buffer = vma->vm_start; - alloc->pages = 
>> kcalloc(alloc->buffer_size / PAGE_SIZE, + alloc->pages = 
>> kvcalloc(alloc->buffer_size / PAGE_SIZE, sizeof(alloc->pages[0]), 
>> GFP_KERNEL); 
> Nit, update the indentation please. 
> thanks, greg k-h
The previous incorrect table title has been updated. Please help review 
it again.

Thank you!
Lei Liu