netdev - Re: surprising memory request

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: <20130118095250.6b9ca9b7@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:52:50 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Dirk Hohndel <dirk@...ndel.org>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: surprising memory request

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:46:30 -0800
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2013-01-18 at 08:58 -0800, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> > Running openconnect on a very recent 3.8 (a few commits before Linus cut
> > RC4) I get this allocation failure. I'm unclear why we would need 128
> > contiguous pages here...
> > 
> > /D
> > 
> > [66015.673818] openconnect: page allocation failure: order:7, mode:0x10c0d0
> > [66015.673827] Pid: 3292, comm: openconnect Tainted: G        W    3.8.0-rc3-00352-gdfdebc2 #94
> > [66015.673830] Call Trace:
> > [66015.673841]  [<ffffffff810e9c29>] warn_alloc_failed+0xe9/0x140
> > [66015.673849]  [<ffffffff81093967>] ? on_each_cpu_mask+0x87/0xa0
> > [66015.673854]  [<ffffffff810ec349>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x579/0x720
> > [66015.673859]  [<ffffffff810ec507>] __get_free_pages+0x17/0x50
> > [66015.673866]  [<ffffffff81123979>] kmalloc_order_trace+0x39/0xf0
> > [66015.673874]  [<ffffffff81666178>] ? __hw_addr_add_ex+0x78/0xc0
> > [66015.673879]  [<ffffffff811260d8>] __kmalloc+0xc8/0x180
> > [66015.673883]  [<ffffffff81666616>] ? dev_addr_init+0x66/0x90
> > [66015.673889]  [<ffffffff81660985>] alloc_netdev_mqs+0x145/0x300
> > [66015.673896]  [<ffffffff81513830>] ? tun_net_fix_features+0x20/0x20
> > [66015.673902]  [<ffffffff815168aa>] __tun_chr_ioctl+0xd0a/0xec0
> > [66015.673908]  [<ffffffff81516a93>] tun_chr_ioctl+0x13/0x20
> > [66015.673913]  [<ffffffff8113b197>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x97/0x530
> > [66015.673917]  [<ffffffff811256f3>] ? kmem_cache_free+0x33/0x170
> > [66015.673923]  [<ffffffff81134896>] ? final_putname+0x26/0x50
> > [66015.673927]  [<ffffffff8113b6c1>] sys_ioctl+0x91/0xb0
> > [66015.673935]  [<ffffffff8180e3d2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> > [66015.673938] Mem-Info:
> 
> Thats because Jason thought that tun device had to have an insane number
> of queues to get good performance.
> 
> #define MAX_TAP_QUEUES 1024
> 
> Thats crazy if your machine has say 8 cpus.
> 
> And Jason didnt care to adapt the memory allocations done in
> alloc_netdev_mqs(), in order to switch to vmalloc() when kmalloc()
> fails.
> 
> commit c8d68e6be1c3b242f1c598595830890b65cea64a
> Author: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> Date:   Wed Oct 31 19:46:00 2012 +0000
> 
>     tuntap: multiqueue support
>     
>     This patch converts tun/tap to a multiqueue devices and expose the multiqueue
>     queues as multiple file descriptors to userspace. Internally, each tun_file were
>     abstracted as a queue, and an array of pointers to tun_file structurs were
>     stored in tun_structure device, so multiple tun_files were allowed to be
>     attached to the device as multiple queues.
>     
>     When choosing txq, we first try to identify a flow through its rxhash, if it
>     does not have such one, we could try recorded rxq and then use them to choose
>     the transmit queue. This policy may be changed in the future.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>     Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>

Also the tuntap device now has it's own flow cache which is also a bad idea.
Why not just 128 queues and a hash like SFQ?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html