| 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: <CANn89iKk8aZ=wwbet8q_U=inbksvWhJvUewMGP+FfLYiD+yOCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 11:06:16 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Brian Vazquez <brianvv.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/dst: use a smaller percpu_counter batch for
dst entries accounting
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:30 AM Brian Vazquez <brianvv.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:00 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > percpu_counter_add() uses a default batch size which is quite big
> > on platforms with 256 cpus. (2*256 -> 512)
> >
> > This means dst_entries_get_fast() can be off by +/- 2*(nr_cpus^2)
> > (131072 on servers with 256 cpus)
> >
> > Reduce the batch size to something more reasonable, and
> > add logic to ip6_dst_gc() to call dst_entries_get_slow()
> > before calling the _very_ expensive fib6_run_gc() function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > include/net/dst_ops.h | 4 +++-
> > net/core/dst.c | 8 ++++----
> > net/ipv6/route.c | 3 +++
> > 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/net/dst_ops.h b/include/net/dst_ops.h
> > index 443863c7b8da362476c15fd290ac2a32a8aa86e3..88ff7bb2bb9bd950cc54fd5e0ae4573d4c66873d 100644
> > --- a/include/net/dst_ops.h
> > +++ b/include/net/dst_ops.h
> > @@ -53,9 +53,11 @@ static inline int dst_entries_get_slow(struct dst_ops *dst)
> > return percpu_counter_sum_positive(&dst->pcpuc_entries);
> > }
> >
> > +#define DST_PERCPU_COUNTER_BATCH 32
> > static inline void dst_entries_add(struct dst_ops *dst, int val)
> > {
> > - percpu_counter_add(&dst->pcpuc_entries, val);
> > + percpu_counter_add_batch(&dst->pcpuc_entries, val,
> > + DST_PERCPU_COUNTER_BATCH);
> > }
> >
> > static inline int dst_entries_init(struct dst_ops *dst)
> > diff --git a/net/core/dst.c b/net/core/dst.c
> > index 193af526e908afa4b868cf128470f0fbc3850698..d6b6ced0d451a39c0ccb88ae39dba225ea9f5705 100644
> > --- a/net/core/dst.c
> > +++ b/net/core/dst.c
> > @@ -81,11 +81,11 @@ void *dst_alloc(struct dst_ops *ops, struct net_device *dev,
> > {
> > struct dst_entry *dst;
> >
> > - if (ops->gc && dst_entries_get_fast(ops) > ops->gc_thresh) {
> > + if (ops->gc &&
> > + !(flags & DST_NOCOUNT) &&
> > + dst_entries_get_fast(ops) > ops->gc_thresh) {
> > if (ops->gc(ops)) {
> > - printk_ratelimited(KERN_NOTICE "Route cache is full: "
> > - "consider increasing sysctl "
> > - "net.ipv[4|6].route.max_size.\n");
> > + pr_notice_ratelimited("Route cache is full: consider increasing sysctl net.ipv6.route.max_size.\n");
> > return NULL;
> > }
> > }
> > diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
> > index 1ff142393c768f85c495474a1d05e1ae1642301c..a9072dba00f4fb0b61bce1fc0f44a3a81ba702fa 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> > @@ -3195,6 +3195,9 @@ static int ip6_dst_gc(struct dst_ops *ops)
> > int entries;
> >
> > entries = dst_entries_get_fast(ops);
> > + if (entries > rt_max_size)
> > + entries = dst_entries_get_slow(ops);
> > +
> > if (time_after(rt_last_gc + rt_min_interval, jiffies) &&
> if this part of the condition is not satisfied, you are going to call
> fib6_run_gc anyways and after that you will update the entries. So I
> was wondering if code here could be something like:
> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> @@ -3197,11 +3197,16 @@ static int ip6_dst_gc(struct dst_ops *ops)
> unsigned long rt_last_gc = net->ipv6.ip6_rt_last_gc;
> int entries;
>
> + if (time_before(rt_last_gc + rt_min_interval, jiffies)
> + goto run_gc;
> +
> entries = dst_entries_get_fast(ops);
> - if (time_after(rt_last_gc + rt_min_interval, jiffies) &&
> - entries <= rt_max_size)
> + if (entries > rt_max_size)
> + entries = dst_entries_get_slow(ops);
> + if (entries <= rt_max_size)
> goto out;
>
> +run_gc:
> net->ipv6.ip6_rt_gc_expire++;
> fib6_run_gc(net->ipv6.ip6_rt_gc_expire, net, true);
> entries = dst_entries_get_slow(ops);
>
> That way you could potentially avoid an extra call to
> dst_entries_get_slow when you know for sure that fib6_run_gc will be
> run. WDYT?
The problem is that you might still return a wrong status in the final :
return entries > rt_max_size;
If we are in ip6_dst_gc(), we know for sure entries might be wrong,
if it holds dst_entries_get_fast(ops)
If you prefer, the patch is really (since the caller calls us only if
dst_entries_get_fast(ops) was suspect)
diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
index ff847a324220bc4cac8b103640f7e1a5db374a87..78e7f3c14e8a9c937866361aaf641cecfe1fed43
100644
--- a/net/ipv6/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
@@ -3196,7 +3196,7 @@ static int ip6_dst_gc(struct dst_ops *ops)
unsigned long rt_last_gc = net->ipv6.ip6_rt_last_gc;
int entries;
- entries = dst_entries_get_fast(ops);
+ entries = dst_entries_get_slow(ops);
if (time_after(rt_last_gc + rt_min_interval, jiffies) &&
entries <= rt_max_size)
goto out;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists