From: Harry Yoo <harry@kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@google.com>,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 2/8] ipc, msg: Account msg_msg allocations with GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT again
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 21:39:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ask5kpMS4mpI8Api@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <asjhg2e4-WSeKuXd@thinkpad>
On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 at 04:22:03PM +0200, Harry Yoo wrote:
> And now I see the initial kmem_buckets design did not sufficiently
> tackle the question "How this should work when kmem_buckets falls back
> to kmalloc?"
>
> I suppose the kmem_buckets' abstraction should not be too tightly
> coupled with kmalloc caches. Creating a kmem_buckets should be
> conceptually equivalent to creating a set of caches with speicifc
> slab flags, size, align, useroffset/size. (for variable size allocation).
Just to clarify... I have a few concerns on this area.
1. Complexity.
It's very counter-intuitive to understand how it works when
SLAB_BUCKETS is not compiled. My brain cannot easily process two
different implementations w/ and w/o SLAB_BUCKETS.
A "compatibility layer" allows us to assume certain expectations
and ignore all implementation details when SLAB_BUCKETS is not compiled.
2. Making kmem_buckets tightly coupled with kmalloc's implementation
details is not reasonable.
Let's say, at some point we make SLAB_BUCKETS always enabled and drop
the config option. Then all kmem_buckets users will now have certain
assumptions inherted from kmalloc (e.g. alignment), which is not
reasonable.
3. __GFP_ACCOUNT and __GFP_DMA should be applied to all allocations
in the slab cache. For kmalloc, these flags are only used to select
the kmalloc cache (which has equivalent SLAB_* flags for __GFP_ACCOUNT
or __GFP_DMA) to serve the allocation.
Specifying it on individual allocations (rather than as SLAB_ flags)
makes it easy to break the assumption.
> When it falls back to kmalloc, kmem_buckets itself should provide a
> compatibility layer when falling back to kmalloc.
For example, calculate_sizes() converts certain SLAB_* flags into
GFP flags (s->allocflags) for allocation. We can have a similar
logic when falling back to kmalloc.
Though current implementation does not allow this and requires
some rework.
--
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-09 19:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-06 9:20 [PATCH net-next v6 0/8] net: skb: isolate skb data area allocations into a separate bucket Kees Cook
2026-10-06 9:20 ` [PATCH net-next v6 1/8] mm/slab: Mark the kmem_buckets_create() context as a Context: section Kees Cook
2026-10-12 16:55 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-10-06 9:20 ` [PATCH net-next v6 2/8] ipc, msg: Account msg_msg allocations with GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT again Kees Cook
2026-10-09 14:22 ` Harry Yoo
2026-10-09 19:39 ` Harry Yoo [this message]
2026-10-10 3:18 ` Kees Cook
2026-10-12 21:05 ` Harry Yoo
2026-10-12 21:19 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-10-13 8:52 ` Kees Cook
2026-10-13 9:48 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-10-10 3:14 ` Kees Cook
2026-10-10 22:37 ` Andrew Morton
2026-10-12 16:46 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-10-13 3:40 ` Kees Cook
2026-10-12 17:55 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-10-12 21:03 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-10-13 3:46 ` Kees Cook
2026-10-06 9:20 ` [PATCH net-next v6 3/8] mm/slab: Drop the ctor and flags arguments from kmem_buckets_create() Kees Cook
2026-10-06 9:20 ` [PATCH net-next v6 4/8] mm/slab: Give bucket caches the alignment of the caches they mirror Kees Cook
2026-10-06 9:20 ` [PATCH net-next v6 5/8] mm/slab: Add kmem_buckets_destroy() Kees Cook
2026-10-06 9:20 ` [PATCH net-next v6 6/8] mm/slab: Add tests for the existing kmem_buckets behaviour Kees Cook
2026-10-06 9:20 ` [PATCH net-next v6 7/8] mm/slab: Provide kmalloc type fallback for bucket allocations Kees Cook
2026-10-06 9:20 ` [PATCH net-next v6 8/8] net: skb: isolate skb data area allocations into a separate bucket Kees Cook
2026-10-08 21:25 ` [PATCH net-next v6 0/8] " Harry Yoo
2026-10-09 6:36 ` Kees Cook
2026-10-09 7:02 ` Vlastimil Babka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ask5kpMS4mpI8Api@thinkpad \
--to=harry@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=kuniyu@google.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=pfalcato@suse.de \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.