public inbox for bpf@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
To: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
	kafai@fb.com, songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
	john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
	quentin@isovalent.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: Make non-preallocated allocation low priority
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:48:29 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220629154832.56986-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220629154832.56986-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com>

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.

It also fixes a typo in the comment.

Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
---
 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);
-- 
2.17.1


  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-29 15:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-29 15:48 [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] bpf: Minor fixes Yafang Shao
2022-06-29 15:48 ` Yafang Shao [this message]
2022-06-30 21:47   ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: Make non-preallocated allocation low priority Daniel Borkmann
2022-07-02  2:30     ` Yafang Shao
2022-07-02  4:14     ` Roman Gushchin
2022-07-02 15:08       ` Yafang Shao
2022-07-02  3:54   ` Roman Gushchin
2022-06-29 15:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf: Warn on non-preallocated case for missed trace types Yafang Shao
2022-06-29 15:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] bpf: Don't do preempt check when migrate is disabled Yafang Shao
2022-06-30 20:43   ` Hao Luo
2022-07-02  2:34     ` Yafang Shao
2022-06-29 15:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpftool: Show also the name of type BPF_OBJ_LINK Yafang Shao
2022-06-29 16:22   ` Quentin Monnet
2022-06-30 21:55     ` Daniel Borkmann

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=20220629154832.56986-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com \
    --to=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quentin@isovalent.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox