Hi Yafang,
On 6/29/22 5:48 PM, Yafang Shao wrote:
GFP_ATOMIC doesn't cooperate well with memcg pressure so far, especially
if we allocate too much GFP_ATOMIC memory. For example, when we set the
memcg limit to limit a non-preallocated bpf memory, the GFP_ATOMIC can
easily break the memcg limit by force charge. So it is very dangerous to
use GFP_ATOMIC in non-preallocated case. One way to make it safe is to
remove __GFP_HIGH from GFP_ATOMIC, IOW, use (__GFP_ATOMIC |
__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM) instead, then it will be limited if we allocate
too much memory.
We introduced BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC is because full map pre-allocation is
too memory expensive for some cases. That means removing __GFP_HIGH
doesn't break the rule of BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC, but has the same goal with
it-avoiding issues caused by too much memory. So let's remove it.
__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM doesn't cooperate well with memcg pressure neither
currently. But the memcg code can be improved to make
__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM work well under memcg pressure.
Ok, but could you also explain in commit desc why it's a specific problem
to BPF hashtab?
Afaik, there is plenty of other code using GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN outside
of BPF e.g. under net/, so it's a generic memcg problem?
Why are lpm trie and local storage map for BPF not affected (at least I don't
see them covered in the patch)?
Thanks,
Daniel
It also fixes a typo in the comment.
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
index 17fb69c0e0dc..9d4559a1c032 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
*
* As regular device interrupt handlers and soft interrupts are forced into
* thread context, the existing code which does
- * spin_lock*(); alloc(GPF_ATOMIC); spin_unlock*();
+ * spin_lock*(); alloc(GFP_ATOMIC); spin_unlock*();
* just works.
*
* In theory the BPF locks could be converted to regular spinlocks as well,
@@ -978,7 +978,8 @@ static struct htab_elem *alloc_htab_elem(struct bpf_htab *htab, void *key,
goto dec_count;
}
l_new = bpf_map_kmalloc_node(&htab->map, htab->elem_size,
- GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN,
+ __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN |
+ __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM,
htab->map.numa_node);
if (!l_new) {
l_new = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
@@ -996,7 +997,8 @@ static struct htab_elem *alloc_htab_elem(struct bpf_htab *htab, void *key,
} else {
/* alloc_percpu zero-fills */
pptr = bpf_map_alloc_percpu(&htab->map, size, 8,
- GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN);
+ __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN |
+ __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM);
if (!pptr) {
kfree(l_new);
l_new = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
