| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHHAMc3CtcP7GUjDf=hbwUePY1jBGxG-KmbKYxuuoLZDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 10:48:13 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: David Wang <00107082@....com>
Cc: kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, Hao Ge <hao.ge@...ux.dev>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>,
Alessio Balsini <balsini@...gle.com>, Pasha Tatashin <tatashin@...gle.com>,
Sourav Panda <souravpanda@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: memory alloc profiling seems not work properly during bootup?
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 7:36 PM David Wang <00107082@....com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> At 2025-01-14 05:56:23, "Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:04 AM David Wang <00107082@....com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> More update,
> >>
> >> When I boot up my system, no alloc_percpu was accounted in kernel/sched/topology.c
> >>
> >> 996 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2275 func:__sdt_alloc 80
> >> 996 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2266 func:__sdt_alloc 80
> >> 96 6 kernel/sched/topology.c:2259 func:__sdt_alloc 80
> >> 12388 24 kernel/sched/topology.c:2252 func:__sdt_alloc 80
> >> 612 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:1961 func:sched_init_numa 1
> >>
> >> And then after suspend/resume, those alloc_percpu shows up.
> >>
> >> 996 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2275 func:__sdt_alloc 395
> >> 996 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2266 func:__sdt_alloc 395
> >> 96 6 kernel/sched/topology.c:2259 func:__sdt_alloc 395
> >> 12388 24 kernel/sched/topology.c:2252 func:__sdt_alloc 395
> >> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2242 func:__sdt_alloc 70 <---
> >> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2238 func:__sdt_alloc 70 <---
> >> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2234 func:__sdt_alloc 70 <---
> >> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2230 func:__sdt_alloc 70 <---
> >> 612 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:1961 func:sched_init_numa 1
> >>
> >> I have my accumulative counter patch and filter out items with 0 accumulative counter,
> >> I am almost sure the patch would not cause this accounting issue, but not 100%.....
> >
> >Have you tested this without your accumulative counter patch?
> >IIUC, that patch filters out any allocation which has never been hit.
> >So, if suspend/resume path contains allocations which were never hit
> >before then those allocations would become suddenly visible, like in
> >your case. That's why I'm against filtering allocinfo data in the
> >kernel. Please try this without your patch and see if the data becomes
> >more consistent.
>
> I remove all my patch and build a 6.13.0-rc7 kernel,
> After boot up,
> 64 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:2579 func:alloc_sched_domains
> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2275 func:__sdt_alloc
> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2266 func:__sdt_alloc
> 96 6 kernel/sched/topology.c:2259 func:__sdt_alloc
> 12288 24 kernel/sched/topology.c:2252 func:__sdt_alloc
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2242 func:__sdt_alloc
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2238 func:__sdt_alloc
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2234 func:__sdt_alloc
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2230 func:__sdt_alloc
> 512 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:1961 func:sched_init_numa
>
> And after suspend/resume, no change detected:
> 64 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:2579 func:alloc_sched_domains
> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2275 func:__sdt_alloc
> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2266 func:__sdt_alloc
> 96 6 kernel/sched/topology.c:2259 func:__sdt_alloc
> 12288 24 kernel/sched/topology.c:2252 func:__sdt_alloc
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2242 func:__sdt_alloc
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2238 func:__sdt_alloc
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2234 func:__sdt_alloc
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2230 func:__sdt_alloc
> 512 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:1961 func:sched_init_numa
>
> I also build a image with accumulative counter, but no filter.
>
> After boot up:
> 64 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:2579 func:alloc_sched_domains 2
> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2275 func:__sdt_alloc 80
> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2266 func:__sdt_alloc 80
> 96 6 kernel/sched/topology.c:2259 func:__sdt_alloc 80
> 12288 24 kernel/sched/topology.c:2252 func:__sdt_alloc 80
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2242 func:__sdt_alloc 0 <---this *0* seems wrong
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2238 func:__sdt_alloc 0
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2234 func:__sdt_alloc 0
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2230 func:__sdt_alloc 0
> 512 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:1961 func:sched_init_numa 1
>
> And then suspend/resume:
> 64 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:2579 func:alloc_sched_domains 17
> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2275 func:__sdt_alloc 395
> 896 14 kernel/sched/topology.c:2266 func:__sdt_alloc 395
> 96 6 kernel/sched/topology.c:2259 func:__sdt_alloc 395
> 12288 24 kernel/sched/topology.c:2252 func:__sdt_alloc 395
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2242 func:__sdt_alloc 70
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2238 func:__sdt_alloc 70
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2234 func:__sdt_alloc 70
> 0 0 kernel/sched/topology.c:2230 func:__sdt_alloc 70
> 512 1 kernel/sched/topology.c:1961 func:sched_init_numa 1>
> Reading the code, those allocation behaviors should be tied together:
> if kzalloc_node at line#2252 happened, then alloc_percpu at line#2230 should also happened.
Hmm, ok. Looks like early calls to alloc_percpu() are not being
registered somehow. Could you please share your cumulative counter
patch with me? I'll try to reproduce this locally and see if I can
spot the issue.
>
> kernel/sched/topology.c
> 2230 sdd->sd = alloc_percpu(struct sched_domain *);
> 2231 if (!sdd->sd)
> 2232 return -ENOMEM;
> ...
> 2246 for_each_cpu(j, cpu_map) {
> ...
> 2252 sd = kzalloc_node(sizeof(struct sched_domain) + cpumask_size(),
> 2253 GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(j));
> ...
> 2257 *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sd, j) = sd;
>
>
> But somehow during bootup, those alloc_percpu in kernel/sched/topology.c:__sdt_alloc were missed in profiling.
> (I am not meant to sell the idea of accumulative counter again here, but it dose help sometimes. :).
>
> >Thanks,
> >Suren.
> >
> >
> >>
>
> Thanks
> David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists