linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bpf: Call cond_resched() to avoid soft lockup in trie

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: <CAADnVQJp-AtrRj_XESbE5TUj6_dGNDwpRWwu2vEHv1HGOb4Fdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 09:25:00 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Matt Fleming <mfleming@...udflare.com>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@...dmodwrite.com>, Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>, 
	Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Call cond_resched() to avoid soft lockup in trie_free()

On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 6:28 AM Matt Fleming <mfleming@...udflare.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 at 20:36, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Good. Now you see my point, right?
> > The cond_resched() doesn't fix the issue.
> > 1hr to free a trie of 100M elements is horrible.
> > Try 100M kmalloc/kfree to see that slab is not the issue.
> > trie_free() algorithm is to blame. It doesn't need to start
> > from the root for every element. Fix the root cause.
>
> It doesn't take an hour to free 100M entries, the table showed it
> takes about a minute (67 or 62 seconds).

yeah. I misread the numbers.

> I never claimed that kmalloc/kfree was at fault. I said that the loop
> in trie_free() has no preemption, and that's a problem with tries with
> millions of entries.
>
> Of course, rewriting the algorithm used in the lpm trie code would
> make this less of an issue. But this would require a major rework.
> It's not as simple as improving trie_free() alone. FWIW I tried using
> a recursive algorithm in trie_free() and the results are slightly
> better, but it still takes multiple seconds to free 10M entries (4.3s)
> and under a minute for 100M (56.7s). To fix this properly it's
> necessary to use more than two children per node to reduce the height
> of the trie.

What is the height of 100m tree ?

What kind of "recursive algo" you have in mind?
Could you try to keep a stack of nodes visited and once leaf is
freed pop a node and continue walking.
Then total height won't be a factor.
The stack would need to be kmalloc-ed, of course,
but still should be faster than walking from the root.

> And in the meantime, anyone who uses maps with millions
> of entries is gonna have the kthread spin in a loop without
> preemption.

Yes, because judging by this thread I don't believe you'll come
back and fix it properly.
I'd rather have this acute pain bothering somebody to fix it
for good instead of papering over.