On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:27:44PM +0100, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Jan 28, 2016 8:40 AM, "Joonsoo Kim" <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hello, >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 07:25:10PM +0100, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >>> >> > Stack depot will allow KASAN store allocation/deallocation stack traces >>> >> > for memory chunks. The stack traces are stored in a hash table and >>> >> > referenced by handles which reside in the kasan_alloc_meta and >>> >> > kasan_free_meta structures in the allocated memory chunks. >>> >> >>> >> Looks really nice! >>> >> >>> >> Could it be more generalized to be used by other feature that need to >>> >> store stack trace such as tracepoint or page owner? >>> > Certainly yes, but see below. >>> > >>> >> If it could be, there is one more requirement. >>> >> I understand the fact that entry is never removed from depot makes things >>> >> very simpler, but, for general usecases, it's better to use reference >>> >> count >>> >> and allow to remove. Is it possible? >>> > For our use case reference counting is not really necessary, and it would >>> > introduce unwanted contention. >> >> Okay. >> >>> > There are two possible options, each having its advantages and drawbacks: we >>> > can let the clients store the refcounters directly in their stacks (more >>> > universal, but harder to use for the clients), or keep the counters in the >>> > depot but add an API that does not change them (easier for the clients, but >>> > potentially error-prone). >>> > I'd say it's better to actually find at least one more user for the stack >>> > depot in order to understand the requirements, and refactor the code after >>> > that. >> >> I re-think the page owner case and it also may not need refcount. >> For now, just moving this stuff to /lib would be helpful for other future user. > I agree this code may need to be moved to /lib someday, but I wouldn't > hurry with that. > Right now it is quite KASAN-specific, and it's unclear yet whether > anyone else is going to use it. > I suggest we keep it in mm/kasan for now, and factor the common parts > into /lib when the need arises. > >> BTW, is there any performance number? I guess that it could affect >> the performance. > I've compared the performance of KASAN with SLAB allocator on a small > synthetic benchmark in two modes: with stack depot enabled and with > kasan_save_stack() unconditionally returning 0. > In the former case 8% more time was spent in the kernel than in the latter case. > > If I am not mistaking, for SLUB allocator the bookkeeping (enabled > with the slub_debug=UZ boot options) take only 1.5 time, so the > difference is worth looking into (at least before we switch SLUB to > stack depot). I've made additional measurements. Previously I had been using a userspace benchmark that created and destroyed pipes in a loop (https://github.com/google/sanitizers/blob/master/address-sanitizer/kernel_buildbot/slave/bench_pipes.c). Now I've made a kernel module that allocated and deallocated memory chunks of different sizes in a loop. There were two modes of operation: 1) all the allocations were made from the same function, therefore all allocation/deallocation stacks were similar and there always was a hit in the stackdepot hashtable 2) The allocations were made from 2^16 different stacks. In the first case SLAB+stackdepot turned out to be 13% faster than SLUB+slub_debug, in the second SLAB was 11% faster. Note that in both cases and for both allocators most of the time (more than 90%) was spent in the x86 stack unwinder, which is common for both approaches. Yet another observation regarding stackdepot: under a heavy load (running Trinity for a hour, 101M allocations) the depot saturates at around 20K records with the hashtable miss rate of 0.02%. That said, I still cannot justify the results of the userspace benchmark, but the slowdown of the stackdepot approach for SLAB sounds acceptable, especially given the memory gain compared to SLUB bookkeeping (which requires 128 bytes per memory allocation) and the fact we'll be dealing with the fast path most of the time. It will certainly be nice to compare SLUB+slub_debug to SLUB+stackdepot once we start switching SLUB to stackdepot. > >> Thanks. > > > > -- > Alexander Potapenko > Software Engineer > > Google Germany GmbH > Erika-Mann-Straße, 33 > 80636 München > > Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle > Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg > Diese E-Mail ist vertraulich. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind, > leiten Sie diese bitte nicht weiter, informieren Sie den > Absender und löschen Sie die E-Mail und alle Anhänge. Vielen Dank. > This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the right addressee please > do not forward it, please inform the sender, and please erase this > e-mail including any attachments. Thanks. -- Alexander Potapenko Software Engineer Google Germany GmbH Erika-Mann-Straße, 33 80636 München Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Diese E-Mail ist vertraulich. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind, leiten Sie diese bitte nicht weiter, informieren Sie den Absender und löschen Sie die E-Mail und alle Anhänge. Vielen Dank. This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the right addressee please do not forward it, please inform the sender, and please erase this e-mail including any attachments. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href