linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce try_alloc

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: <CAADnVQJBHPbq6+TQhM2kmWNBTiPoB50_fnVcwC+yLOtpjUWujA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 14:30:15 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, 
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce try_alloc_pages for 6.15

On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 1:42 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 07:52, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > The pull includes work from Sebastian, Vlastimil and myself
> > with a lot of help from Michal and Shakeel.
> > This is a first step towards making kmalloc reentrant to get rid
> > of slab wrappers: bpf_mem_alloc, kretprobe's objpool, etc.
> > These patches make page allocator safe from any context.
>
> So I've pulled this too, since it looked generally fine.

Thanks!

> The one reaction I had is that when you basically change
>
>         spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>
> into
>
>         if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags)) {
>                 if (unlikely(alloc_flags & ALLOC_TRYLOCK))
>                         return NULL;
>                 spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>         }
>
> we've seen bad cache behavior for this kind of pattern in other
> situations: if the "try" fails, the subsequent "do the lock for real"
> case now does the wrong thing, in that it will immediately try again
> even if it's almost certainly just going to fail - causing extra write
> cache accesses.
>
> So typically, in places that can see contention, it's better to either do
>
>  (a) trylock followed by a slowpath that takes the fact that it was
> locked into account and does a read-only loop until it sees otherwise
>
>      This is, for example, what the mutex code does with that
> __mutex_trylock() -> mutex_optimistic_spin() pattern, but our
> spinlocks end up doing similar things (ie "trylock" followed by
> "release irq and do the 'relax loop' thing).

Right,
__mutex_trylock(lock) -> mutex_optimistic_spin() pattern is
equivalent to 'pending' bit spinning in qspinlock.

> or
>
>  (b) do the trylock and lock separately, ie
>
>         if (unlikely(alloc_flags & ALLOC_TRYLOCK)) {
>                 if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags))
>                         return NULL;
>         } else
>                 spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>
> so that you don't end up doing two cache accesses for ownership that
> can cause extra bouncing.

Ok, I will switch to above.

> I'm not sure this matters at all in the allocation path - contention
> may simply not be enough of an issue, and the trylock is purely about
> "unlikely NMI worries", but I do worry that you might have made the
> normal case slower.

We actually did see zone->lock being contended in production.
Last time the culprit was an inadequate per-cpu caching and
these series in 6.11 fixed it:
https://lwn.net/Articles/947900/
I don't think we've seen it contended in the newer kernels.

Johannes, pls correct me if I'm wrong.

But to avoid being finger pointed, I'll switch to checking alloc_flags
first. It does seem a better trade off to avoid cache bouncing because
of 2nd cmpxchg. Though when I wrote it this way I convinced myself and
others that it's faster to do trylock first to avoid branch misprediction.