lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] [RFC] mm/vmalloc: fix possible exhaustion of vmalloc space
From
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Roman Peniaev <r.peniaev@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@lge.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2015-03-13 오후 9:12에 Roman Pen 이(가) 쓴 글:
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> Recently I came across high fragmentation of vm_map_ram allocator: vmap_block
>>> has free space, but still new blocks continue to appear. Further investigation
>>> showed that certain mapping/unmapping sequence can exhaust vmalloc space. On
>>> small 32bit systems that's not a big problem, cause purging will be called soon
>>> on a first allocation failure (alloc_vmap_area), but on 64bit machines, e.g.
>>> x86_64 has 45 bits of vmalloc space, that can be a disaster.
>>
>> I think the problem you comments is already known so that I wrote comments about it as
>> "it could consume lots of address space through fragmentation".
>>
>> Could you tell me about your situation and reason why it should be avoided?
>
> In the first patch of this set I explicitly described the function,
> which exhausts
> vmalloc space without any chance to be purged: vm_map_ram allocator is
> greedy and firstly
> tries to occupy newly allocated block, even old blocks contain enough
> free space.
>
> This can be easily fixed if we put newly allocated block (which has
> enough space to
> complete further requests) to the tail of a free list, to give a
> chance to old blocks.
>
> Why it should be avoided? Strange question. For me it looks like a
> bug of an allocator,
> which should be fair and should not continuously allocate new blocks
> without lazy purging
> (seems vmap_lazy_nr and __purge_vmap_area_lazy were created exactly
> for those reasons:
> to avoid infinite allocations)


And if you are talking about your commit 364376383, which adds this comment

* If you use this function for less than VMAP_MAX_ALLOC pages, it could be
* faster than vmap so it's good. But if you mix long-life and short-life
* objects with vm_map_ram(), it could consume lots of address space through
* fragmentation (especially on a 32bit machine). You could see failures in
* the end. Please use this function for short-lived objects.

This is not that case, because if block is pinned, i.e. some pages are still
in use, we can't do anything with that.

I am talking about blocks, which are completely freed, but dirty.


--
Roman

>
>
> --
> Roman
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Fixing this I also did some tweaks in allocation logic of a new vmap block and
>>> replaced dirty bitmap with min/max dirty range values to make the logic simpler.
>>>
>>> I would like to receive comments on the following three patches.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Roman Pen (3):
>>> mm/vmalloc: fix possible exhaustion of vmalloc space caused by
>>> vm_map_ram allocator
>>> mm/vmalloc: occupy newly allocated vmap block just after allocation
>>> mm/vmalloc: get rid of dirty bitmap inside vmap_block structure
>>>
>>> mm/vmalloc.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>>> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
>>> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>>> Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
>>> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
>>> Cc: WANG Chao <chaowang@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>
>>> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
>>> Cc: Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@lge.com>
>>> Cc: Rob Jones <rob.jones@codethink.co.uk>
>>> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-16 12:21    [W:0.043 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site