From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: tgraf@suug.ch, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Subject: [PATCH] rhashtable: avoid large lock-array allocations
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:03:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1470996232-16558-1-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de> (raw)
Sander reports following splat after netfilter nat bysrc table got
converted to rhashtable:
swapper/0: page allocation failure: order:3, mode:0x2084020(GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_COMP)
CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc1 [..]
[<ffffffff811633ed>] warn_alloc_failed+0xdd/0x140
[<ffffffff811638b1>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3e1/0xcf0
[<ffffffff811a72ed>] alloc_pages_current+0x8d/0x110
[<ffffffff8117cb7f>] kmalloc_order+0x1f/0x70
[<ffffffff811aec19>] __kmalloc+0x129/0x140
[<ffffffff8146d561>] bucket_table_alloc+0xc1/0x1d0
[<ffffffff8146da1d>] rhashtable_insert_rehash+0x5d/0xe0
[<ffffffff819fcfff>] nf_nat_setup_info+0x2ef/0x400
The failure happens when allocating the spinlock array.
Even with GFP_KERNEL its unlikely for such a large allocation
to succeed.
Thomas Graf pointed me at inet_ehash_locks_alloc(), so in addition
to adding NOWARN for atomic allocations this also makes the bucket-array
sizing more conservative.
In commit 095dc8e0c3686 ("tcp: fix/cleanup inet_ehash_locks_alloc()"),
Eric Dumazet says: "Budget 2 cache lines per cpu worth of 'spinlocks'".
IOW, consider size needed by a single spinlock when determining
number of locks per cpu. So with 64 byte per cacheline and 4 byte per
spinlock this gives 32 locks per cpu.
Resulting size of the lock-array (sizeof(spinlock) == 4):
cpus: 1 2 4 8 16 32 64
old: 1k 1k 4k 8k 16k 16k 16k
new: 128 256 512 1k 2k 4k 8k
8k allocation should have decent chance of success even
with GFP_ATOMIC, and should not fail with GFP_KERNEL.
With 72-byte spinlock (LOCKDEP):
cpus : 1 2
old: 9k 18k
new: ~2k ~4k
Reported-by: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@eikelenboom.it>
Suggested-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
---
lib/rhashtable.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c
index 5d845ff..42acd81 100644
--- a/lib/rhashtable.c
+++ b/lib/rhashtable.c
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
#define HASH_DEFAULT_SIZE 64UL
#define HASH_MIN_SIZE 4U
-#define BUCKET_LOCKS_PER_CPU 128UL
+#define BUCKET_LOCKS_PER_CPU 32UL
static u32 head_hashfn(struct rhashtable *ht,
const struct bucket_table *tbl,
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static int alloc_bucket_locks(struct rhashtable *ht, struct bucket_table *tbl,
unsigned int nr_pcpus = num_possible_cpus();
#endif
- nr_pcpus = min_t(unsigned int, nr_pcpus, 32UL);
+ nr_pcpus = min_t(unsigned int, nr_pcpus, 64UL);
size = roundup_pow_of_two(nr_pcpus * ht->p.locks_mul);
/* Never allocate more than 0.5 locks per bucket */
@@ -83,6 +83,9 @@ static int alloc_bucket_locks(struct rhashtable *ht, struct bucket_table *tbl,
tbl->locks = vmalloc(size * sizeof(spinlock_t));
else
#endif
+ if (gfp != GFP_KERNEL)
+ gfp |= __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY;
+
tbl->locks = kmalloc_array(size, sizeof(spinlock_t),
gfp);
if (!tbl->locks)
--
2.7.3
next reply other threads:[~2016-08-12 10:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-12 10:03 Florian Westphal [this message]
2016-08-15 4:14 ` [PATCH] rhashtable: avoid large lock-array allocations David Miller
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=1470996232-16558-1-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tgraf@suug.ch \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).