linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] alloc_tag: make page allocation tag reference size configurable

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: <CAJuCfpGPvsQamSdQecgqKXaEkkHLLOFbhiMwyo15aE_w=PNZFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 09:35:28 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, corbet@....net, arnd@...db.de, 
	mcgrof@...nel.org, rppt@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org, thuth@...hat.com, 
	tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, xiongwei.song@...driver.com, 
	ardb@...nel.org, david@...hat.com, vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...e.com, 
	hannes@...xchg.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, dave@...olabs.net, 
	willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com, 
	souravpanda@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org, dennis@...nel.org, 
	jhubbard@...dia.com, yuzhao@...gle.com, vvvvvv@...gle.com, 
	rostedt@...dmis.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, rientjes@...gle.com, 
	minchan@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] alloc_tag: make page allocation tag reference size configurable

On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 9:25 AM Kent Overstreet
<kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 07:04:51PM GMT, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 6:17 PM Kent Overstreet
> > <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 06:07:28PM GMT, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 10:09 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun,  1 Sep 2024 21:41:27 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Introduce CONFIG_PGALLOC_TAG_REF_BITS to control the size of the
> > > > > > page allocation tag references. When the size is configured to be
> > > > > > less than a direct pointer, the tags are searched using an index
> > > > > > stored as the tag reference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +config PGALLOC_TAG_REF_BITS
> > > > > > +     int "Number of bits for page allocation tag reference (10-64)"
> > > > > > +     range 10 64
> > > > > > +     default "64"
> > > > > > +     depends on MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING
> > > > > > +     help
> > > > > > +       Number of bits used to encode a page allocation tag reference.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       Smaller number results in less memory overhead but limits the number of
> > > > > > +       allocations which can be tagged (including allocations from modules).
> > > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, "we have no idea what's best for you, you're on your
> > > > > own".
> > > > >
> > > > > I pity our poor users.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we at least tell them what they should look at to determine whether
> > > > > whatever random number they chose was helpful or harmful?
> > > >
> > > > At the end of my reply in
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJuCfpGNYgx0GW4suHRzmxVH28RGRnFBvFC6WO+F8BD4HDqxXA@mail.gmail.com/#t
> > > > I suggested using all unused page flags. That would simplify things
> > > > for the user at the expense of potentially using more memory than we
> > > > need.
> > >
> > > Why would that use more memory, and how much?
> >
> > Say our kernel uses 5000 page allocations and there are additional 100
> > allocations from all the modules we are loading at runtime. They all
> > can be addressed using 13 bits (8192 addressable tags), so the
> > contiguous memory we will be preallocating to store these tags is 8192
> > * sizeof(alloc_tag). sizeof(alloc_tag) is 40 bytes as of today but
> > might increase in the future if we add more fields there for other
> > uses (like gfp_flags for example). So, currently this would use 320KB.
> > If we always use 16 bits we would be preallocating 2.5MB. So, that
> > would be 2.2MB of wasted memory. Using more than 16 bits (65536
> > addressable tags) will be impractical anytime soon (current number
> > IIRC is a bit over 4000).
>
> I see, it's not about the page bits, it's about the contiguous array of
> alloc tags?
>
> What if we just reserved address space, and only filled it in as needed?

That might be possible. I'll have to try that. Thanks!