netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH net] rhashtable: avoid large lock-array allocations
@ 2016-08-12  2:13 Florian Westphal
  2016-08-12  2:27 ` kbuild test robot
  2016-08-15  4:13 ` David Miller
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Florian Westphal @ 2016-08-12  2:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netdev; +Cc: tgraf, Florian Westphal

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.

Currently, rhashtable just allocates 128 locks per cpu which gives
factor of 4 more than what inet hashtable uses with same number of
cpus.

For LOCKDEP, we now allocate a lot less locks than before (1 per cpu on
my test box) so we no longer need to pretend we only have two cpus.

Some sizes (64 byte L1 cache, 4 byte per spinlock, numbers in bytes):

cpus:    1   2   4    8   16    32   64
old:    1k  1k  4k   8k  16k   16k  16k
new:   128 256 512   1k   2k    4k   8k

With 72-byte spinlock (LOCKDEP):
cpus :   1   2   4    8   16    32   64
old:    9k 18k 18k  18k  18k   18k  18k
new:    72 144 288  575  ~1k ~2.3k  ~4k

Reported-by: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@eikelenboom.it>
Suggested-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
---
 Alernatively we could lower BUCKET_LOCKS_PER_CPU to 32
 and keep the CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING ifdef around.

 Any preference?

 Thanks!

 lib/rhashtable.c | 14 +++++++-------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c
index 5d845ff..92cf5a9 100644
--- a/lib/rhashtable.c
+++ b/lib/rhashtable.c
@@ -30,7 +30,8 @@
 
 #define HASH_DEFAULT_SIZE	64UL
 #define HASH_MIN_SIZE		4U
-#define BUCKET_LOCKS_PER_CPU   128UL
+#define BUCKET_LOCKS_PER_CPU	max_t(unsigned int, \
+				      2 * L1_CACHE_BYTES / sizeof(spinlock_t), 1)
 
 static u32 head_hashfn(struct rhashtable *ht,
 		       const struct bucket_table *tbl,
@@ -63,14 +64,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lockdep_rht_bucket_is_held);
 static int alloc_bucket_locks(struct rhashtable *ht, struct bucket_table *tbl,
 			      gfp_t gfp)
 {
-	unsigned int i, size;
-#if defined(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)
-	unsigned int nr_pcpus = 2;
-#else
 	unsigned int nr_pcpus = num_possible_cpus();
-#endif
+	unsigned int i, size;
 
-	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 +80,9 @@ 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

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-08-15  4:13 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-08-12  2:13 [PATCH net] rhashtable: avoid large lock-array allocations Florian Westphal
2016-08-12  2:27 ` kbuild test robot
2016-08-12  2:31   ` Florian Westphal
2016-08-15  4:13 ` David Miller

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).