Re: [PATCH 2/2] fs: proc/stat: use usual seq_file ops rather than single_open

[Ian Kent]

On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 15:29 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> 
> > Alternatively we could also change the seqfile code to fall back to
> > vmalloc allocations. That would probably "fix" all single_open usages
> > where large contiguous memory areas are needed and later on fail due
> > to memory fragmentation.
> > Does anybody like that approach (sample patch below)?

Personally, I much prefer this from a risk of regression POV.

> > 
> > ---
> >  fs/seq_file.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/seq_file.c b/fs/seq_file.c
> > index 1d641bb108d2..fca78a04c0d1 100644
> > --- a/fs/seq_file.c
> > +++ b/fs/seq_file.c
> > @@ -8,8 +8,10 @@
> >  #include <linux/fs.h>
> >  #include <linux/export.h>
> >  #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> > +#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> >  #include <linux/cred.h>
> > +#include <linux/mm.h>
> >  
> >  #include <asm/uaccess.h>
> >  #include <asm/page.h>
> > @@ -82,6 +84,31 @@ int seq_open(struct file *file, const struct seq_operations *op)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(seq_open);
> >  
> > +static void seq_alloc(struct seq_file *m)
> > +{
> > +	m->size = PAGE_SIZE;
> > +	m->buf = kmalloc(m->size, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > +	if (!m->buf)
> > +		m->buf = vmalloc(m->size);
> > +}
> > +
> 
> If m->size is unconditionally PAGE_SIZE, then how is vmalloc() going to 
> allocate this if kmalloc() fails?

This is just the initial allocation.
If it runs out of room the allocation size doubles.

I think 2*PAGE_SIZE is probably better here since that's closer to what
the original heuristic allocation requested and is likely to avoid
reallocations in most cases.

The issue of kmalloc() failing for larger allocations on low speced
hardware with fragmented memory might succeed when vmalloc() is used
since it doesn't require contiguous memory chunks. But I guess the added
pressure on the page table might still be a problem, nevertheless it's
probably worth trying before bailing out. 

> 
> > +static void seq_free(struct seq_file *m)
> > +{
> > +	if (unlikely(is_vmalloc_addr(m->buf)))
> > +		vfree(m->buf);
> > +	else
> > +		kfree(m->buf);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void seq_realloc(struct seq_file *m)
> > +{
> > +	seq_free(m);
> > +	m->size <<= 1;
> > +	m->buf = kmalloc(m->size, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > +	if (!m->buf)
> > +		m->buf = vmalloc(m->size);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int traverse(struct seq_file *m, loff_t offset)
> >  {
> >  	loff_t pos = 0, index;
> > @@ -96,7 +123,7 @@ static int traverse(struct seq_file *m, loff_t offset)
> >  		return 0;
> >  	}
> >  	if (!m->buf) {
> > -		m->buf = kmalloc(m->size = PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +		seq_alloc(m);
> >  		if (!m->buf)
> >  			return -ENOMEM;
> >  	}
> > @@ -135,9 +162,8 @@ static int traverse(struct seq_file *m, loff_t offset)
> >  
> >  Eoverflow:
> >  	m->op->stop(m, p);
> > -	kfree(m->buf);
> >  	m->count = 0;
> > -	m->buf = kmalloc(m->size <<= 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	seq_realloc(m);
> >  	return !m->buf ? -ENOMEM : -EAGAIN;
> >  }
> >  
> 
> It seems like traverse() could be rewritten to use krealloc() which does a 
> memcpy() to simplify the calling code.

Sure, but that's an improvement that could be considered once the
current problem is addressed.

Even though the struct seq_file fields shouldn't be used outside of the
seq_file routines we can't know that's the case for all users and we
don't know if other's make assumptions based on the way it works now.

Ian

> 
> > @@ -192,7 +218,7 @@ ssize_t seq_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t size, loff_t *ppos)
> >  
> >  	/* grab buffer if we didn't have one */
> >  	if (!m->buf) {
> > -		m->buf = kmalloc(m->size = PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +		seq_alloc(m);
> >  		if (!m->buf)
> >  			goto Enomem;
> >  	}
> > @@ -232,9 +258,8 @@ ssize_t seq_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t size, loff_t *ppos)
> >  		if (m->count < m->size)
> >  			goto Fill;
> >  		m->op->stop(m, p);
> > -		kfree(m->buf);
> >  		m->count = 0;
> > -		m->buf = kmalloc(m->size <<= 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +		seq_realloc(m);
> >  		if (!m->buf)
> >  			goto Enomem;
> >  		m->version = 0;
> > @@ -350,7 +375,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(seq_lseek);
> >  int seq_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> >  {
> >  	struct seq_file *m = file->private_data;
> > -	kfree(m->buf);
> > +	seq_free(m);
> >  	kfree(m);
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> > @@ -605,8 +630,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(single_open);
> >  int single_open_size(struct file *file, int (*show)(struct seq_file *, void *),
> >  		void *data, size_t size)
> >  {
> > -	char *buf = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	char *buf;
> >  	int ret;
> > +
> > +	buf = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > +	if (!buf)
> > +		buf = vmalloc(size);
> >  	if (!buf)
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  	ret = single_open(file, show, data);


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/