linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/8] mm: vmalloc: don't account for number of nodes for HUGE

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: <Zw_1_ln440eHTjGt@pc636>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:21:02 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Brian Cain <bcain@...cinc.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
	linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-openrisc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/8] mm: vmalloc: don't account for number of nodes
 for HUGE_VMAP allocations

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 03:24:18PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@...nel.org>
> 
> vmalloc allocations with VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP that do not explicitly
> specify node ID will use huge pages only if size_per_node is larger than
> a huge page.
> Still the actual allocated memory is not distributed between nodes and
> there is no advantage in such approach.
> On the contrary, BPF allocates SZ_2M * num_possible_nodes() for each
> new bpf_prog_pack, while it could do with a single huge page per pack.
> 
> Don't account for number of nodes for VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP with
> NUMA_NO_NODE and use huge pages whenever the requested allocation size
> is larger than a huge page.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 9 ++-------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 634162271c00..86b2344d7461 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -3763,8 +3763,6 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range_noprof(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
>  	}
>  
>  	if (vmap_allow_huge && (vm_flags & VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP)) {
> -		unsigned long size_per_node;
> -
>  		/*
>  		 * Try huge pages. Only try for PAGE_KERNEL allocations,
>  		 * others like modules don't yet expect huge pages in
> @@ -3772,13 +3770,10 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range_noprof(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
>  		 * supporting them.
>  		 */
>  
> -		size_per_node = size;
> -		if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> -			size_per_node /= num_online_nodes();
> -		if (arch_vmap_pmd_supported(prot) && size_per_node >= PMD_SIZE)
> +		if (arch_vmap_pmd_supported(prot) && size >= PMD_SIZE)
>  			shift = PMD_SHIFT;
>  		else
> -			shift = arch_vmap_pte_supported_shift(size_per_node);
> +			shift = arch_vmap_pte_supported_shift(size);
>  
>  		align = max(real_align, 1UL << shift);
>  		size = ALIGN(real_size, 1UL << shift);
>
Looking at this place, i see that an overwriting a "size" approach seems as
something that is a bit hard to follow. Below we have following code:

<snip>
...
again:
	area = __get_vm_area_node(real_size, align, shift, VM_ALLOC |
	  VM_UNINITIALIZED | vm_flags, start, end, node,
	  gfp_mask, caller);
...
<snip>

where we pass a "real_size", whereas there is only one place in the
__vmalloc_node_range_noprof() function where a "size" is used. It is
in the end of function:

<snip>
...
	size = PAGE_ALIGN(size);
	if (!(vm_flags & VM_DEFER_KMEMLEAK))
		kmemleak_vmalloc(area, size, gfp_mask);

	return area->addr;
<snip>

As fro this patch:

Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>

--
Uladzislau Rezki