Re: [PATCH v3] lib: stackdepot: Add support to configure STACK_HASH_SIZE

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 11:25 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 6:04 AM <vjitta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Yogesh Lal <ylal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Add a kernel parameter stack_hash_order to configure STACK_HASH_SIZE.
> >
> > Aim is to have configurable value for STACK_HASH_SIZE, so that one
> > can configure it depending on usecase there by reducing the static
> > memory overhead.
> >
> > One example is of Page Owner, default value of STACK_HASH_SIZE lead
> > stack depot to consume 8MB of static memory. Making it configurable
> > and use lower value helps to enable features like CONFIG_PAGE_OWNER
> > without any significant overhead.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Yogesh Lal <ylal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  lib/stackdepot.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/stackdepot.c b/lib/stackdepot.c
> > index 81c69c0..e0eebfd 100644
> > --- a/lib/stackdepot.c
> > +++ b/lib/stackdepot.c
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/stackdepot.h>
> >  #include <linux/string.h>
> >  #include <linux/types.h>
> > +#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> >
> >  #define DEPOT_STACK_BITS (sizeof(depot_stack_handle_t) * 8)
> >
> > @@ -141,14 +142,36 @@ static struct stack_record *depot_alloc_stack(unsigned long *entries, int size,
> >         return stack;
> >  }
> >
> > -#define STACK_HASH_ORDER 20
> > -#define STACK_HASH_SIZE (1L << STACK_HASH_ORDER)
> > +#define MAX_STACK_HASH_ORDER 20
> > +#define MAX_STACK_HASH_SIZE (1L << MAX_STACK_HASH_ORDER)
> > +#define STACK_HASH_SIZE (1L << stack_hash_order)
> >  #define STACK_HASH_MASK (STACK_HASH_SIZE - 1)
> >  #define STACK_HASH_SEED 0x9747b28c
> >
> > -static struct stack_record *stack_table[STACK_HASH_SIZE] = {
> > -       [0 ...  STACK_HASH_SIZE - 1] = NULL
> > +static unsigned int stack_hash_order = 20;
> > +static struct stack_record *stack_table_def[MAX_STACK_HASH_SIZE] __initdata = {
> > +       [0 ...  MAX_STACK_HASH_SIZE - 1] = NULL
> >  };
> > +static struct stack_record **stack_table __refdata = stack_table_def;
> > +
> > +static int __init setup_stack_hash_order(char *str)
> > +{
> > +       kstrtouint(str, 0, &stack_hash_order);
> > +       if (stack_hash_order > MAX_STACK_HASH_ORDER)

Can interrupts happen here?

> > +               stack_hash_order = MAX_STACK_HASH_ORDER;
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_param("stack_hash_order", setup_stack_hash_order);
> > +
> > +static int __init init_stackdepot(void)
> > +{
> > +       size_t size = (STACK_HASH_SIZE * sizeof(struct stack_record *));
> > +
> > +       stack_table = vmalloc(size);
> > +       memcpy(stack_table, stack_table_def, size);
>
> Can interrupts happen at this point in time? If yes, they can
> use/modify stack_table_def concurrently.
>
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_initcall(init_stackdepot);
> >
> >  /* Calculate hash for a stack */
> >  static inline u32 hash_stack(unsigned long *entries, unsigned int size)
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> > QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation