linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] mm: move per-vma lock into vm_area

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: <CAJuCfpFAh-gw_BVCaEB4+saedVC6aPB7HfyPikvTujyGRLXPwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:44:29 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, 
	lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, 
	hannes@...xchg.org, mjguzik@...il.com, oliver.sang@...el.com, 
	mgorman@...hsingularity.net, david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, 
	oleg@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, paulmck@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org, 
	dhowells@...hat.com, hdanton@...a.com, hughd@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, 
	jannh@...gle.com, souravpanda@...gle.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com, 
	corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] mm: move per-vma lock into vm_area_struct

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 3:33 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 04:08:23PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > Back when per-vma locks were introduces, vm_lock was moved out of
> > vm_area_struct in [1] because of the performance regression caused by
> > false cacheline sharing. Recent investigation [2] revealed that the
> > regressions is limited to a rather old Broadwell microarchitecture and
> > even there it can be mitigated by disabling adjacent cacheline
> > prefetching, see [3].
> > Splitting single logical structure into multiple ones leads to more
> > complicated management, extra pointer dereferences and overall less
> > maintainable code. When that split-away part is a lock, it complicates
> > things even further. With no performance benefits, there are no reasons
> > for this split. Merging the vm_lock back into vm_area_struct also allows
> > vm_area_struct to use SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU later in this patchset.
> > Move vm_lock back into vm_area_struct, aligning it at the cacheline
> > boundary and changing the cache to be cacheline-aligned as well.
> > With kernel compiled using defconfig, this causes VMA memory consumption
> > to grow from 160 (vm_area_struct) + 40 (vm_lock) bytes to 256 bytes:
> >
> >     slabinfo before:
> >      <name>           ... <objsize> <objperslab> <pagesperslab> : ...
> >      vma_lock         ...     40  102    1 : ...
> >      vm_area_struct   ...    160   51    2 : ...
> >
> >     slabinfo after moving vm_lock:
> >      <name>           ... <objsize> <objperslab> <pagesperslab> : ...
> >      vm_area_struct   ...    256   32    2 : ...
> >
> > Aggregate VMA memory consumption per 1000 VMAs grows from 50 to 64 pages,
> > which is 5.5MB per 100000 VMAs. Note that the size of this structure is
> > dependent on the kernel configuration and typically the original size is
> > higher than 160 bytes. Therefore these calculations are close to the
> > worst case scenario. A more realistic vm_area_struct usage before this
> > change is:
> >
> >      <name>           ... <objsize> <objperslab> <pagesperslab> : ...
> >      vma_lock         ...     40  102    1 : ...
> >      vm_area_struct   ...    176   46    2 : ...
> >
> > Aggregate VMA memory consumption per 1000 VMAs grows from 54 to 64 pages,
> > which is 3.9MB per 100000 VMAs.
> > This memory consumption growth can be addressed later by optimizing the
> > vm_lock.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230227173632.3292573-34-surenb@google.com/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZsQyI%2F087V34JoIt@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
> > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJuCfpEisU8Lfe96AYJDZ+OM4NoPmnw9bP53cT_kbfP_pR+-2g@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>

Thanks!

>
>
> One question below.
>
> > --- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
> > @@ -716,8 +716,6 @@ struct vm_area_struct {
> >        * slowpath.
> >        */
> >       unsigned int vm_lock_seq;
> > -     /* Unstable RCU readers are allowed to read this. */
> > -     struct vma_lock *vm_lock;
> >  #endif
> >
> >       /*
> > @@ -770,6 +768,10 @@ struct vm_area_struct {
> >       struct vma_numab_state *numab_state;    /* NUMA Balancing state */
> >  #endif
> >       struct vm_userfaultfd_ctx vm_userfaultfd_ctx;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
> > +     /* Unstable RCU readers are allowed to read this. */
> > +     struct vma_lock vm_lock ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> > +#endif
> >  } __randomize_layout;
>
> Do we just want 'struct vm_area_struct' to be cacheline aligned or do we
> want 'struct vma_lock vm_lock' to be on a separate cacheline as well?

We want both to minimize cacheline sharing.

>