[PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines

[PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines

[Pasha Tatashin]

From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>

The magazine buffers can take gigabytes of kmem memory, dominating all
other allocations. For observability prurpose create named slab cache so
the iova magazine memory overhead can be clearly observed.

With this change:

> slabtop -o | head
 Active / Total Objects (% used)    : 869731 / 952904 (91.3%)
 Active / Total Slabs (% used)      : 103411 / 103974 (99.5%)
 Active / Total Caches (% used)     : 135 / 211 (64.0%)
 Active / Total Size (% used)       : 395389.68K / 411430.20K (96.1%)
 Minimum / Average / Maximum Object : 0.02K / 0.43K / 8.00K

OBJS ACTIVE  USE OBJ SIZE  SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
244412 244239 99%    1.00K  61103       4    244412K iommu_iova_magazine
 91636  88343 96%    0.03K    739     124      2956K kmalloc-32
 75744  74844 98%    0.12K   2367      32      9468K kernfs_node_cache

On this machine it is now clear that magazine use 242M of kmem memory.

Signed-off-by: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
---
 drivers/iommu/iova.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
index d30e453d0fb4..617bbc2b79f5 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
@@ -630,6 +630,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(reserve_iova);
 
 #define IOVA_DEPOT_DELAY msecs_to_jiffies(100)
 
+static struct kmem_cache *iova_magazine_cache;
+static unsigned int iova_magazine_cache_users;
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
+
 struct iova_magazine {
 	union {
 		unsigned long size;
@@ -654,11 +658,51 @@ struct iova_rcache {
 	struct delayed_work work;
 };
 
+static int iova_magazine_cache_init(void)
+{
+	int ret = 0;
+
+	mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
+
+	iova_magazine_cache_users++;
+	if (iova_magazine_cache_users > 1)
+		goto out_unlock;
+
+	iova_magazine_cache = kmem_cache_create("iommu_iova_magazine",
+						sizeof(struct iova_magazine),
+						0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
+
+	if (!iova_magazine_cache) {
+		pr_err("Couldn't create iova magazine cache\n");
+		ret = -ENOMEM;
+	}
+
+out_unlock:
+	mutex_unlock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static void iova_magazine_cache_fini(void)
+{
+	mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
+
+	if (WARN_ON(!iova_magazine_cache_users))
+		goto out_unlock;
+
+	iova_magazine_cache_users--;
+	if (!iova_magazine_cache_users)
+		kmem_cache_destroy(iova_magazine_cache);
+
+out_unlock:
+	mutex_unlock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
+}
+
 static struct iova_magazine *iova_magazine_alloc(gfp_t flags)
 {
 	struct iova_magazine *mag;
 
-	mag = kmalloc(sizeof(*mag), flags);
+	mag = kmem_cache_alloc(iova_magazine_cache, flags);
 	if (mag)
 		mag->size = 0;
 
@@ -667,7 +711,7 @@ static struct iova_magazine *iova_magazine_alloc(gfp_t flags)
 
 static void iova_magazine_free(struct iova_magazine *mag)
 {
-	kfree(mag);
+	kmem_cache_free(iova_magazine_cache, mag);
 }
 
 static void
@@ -766,11 +810,17 @@ int iova_domain_init_rcaches(struct iova_domain *iovad)
 	unsigned int cpu;
 	int i, ret;
 
+	ret = iova_magazine_cache_init();
+	if (ret)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
 	iovad->rcaches = kcalloc(IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE,
 				 sizeof(struct iova_rcache),
 				 GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!iovad->rcaches)
+	if (!iovad->rcaches) {
+		iova_magazine_cache_fini();
 		return -ENOMEM;
+	}
 
 	for (i = 0; i < IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE; ++i) {
 		struct iova_cpu_rcache *cpu_rcache;
@@ -948,6 +998,7 @@ static void free_iova_rcaches(struct iova_domain *iovad)
 
 	kfree(iovad->rcaches);
 	iovad->rcaches = NULL;
+	iova_magazine_cache_fini();
 }
 
 /*
-- 
2.43.0.594.gd9cf4e227d-goog

Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines

[Robin Murphy]

On 2024-02-01 7:30 pm, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
> 
> The magazine buffers can take gigabytes of kmem memory, dominating all
> other allocations. For observability prurpose create named slab cache so
> the iova magazine memory overhead can be clearly observed.
> 
> With this change:
> 
>> slabtop -o | head
>   Active / Total Objects (% used)    : 869731 / 952904 (91.3%)
>   Active / Total Slabs (% used)      : 103411 / 103974 (99.5%)
>   Active / Total Caches (% used)     : 135 / 211 (64.0%)
>   Active / Total Size (% used)       : 395389.68K / 411430.20K (96.1%)
>   Minimum / Average / Maximum Object : 0.02K / 0.43K / 8.00K
> 
> OBJS ACTIVE  USE OBJ SIZE  SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
> 244412 244239 99%    1.00K  61103       4    244412K iommu_iova_magazine
>   91636  88343 96%    0.03K    739     124      2956K kmalloc-32
>   75744  74844 98%    0.12K   2367      32      9468K kernfs_node_cache
> 
> On this machine it is now clear that magazine use 242M of kmem memory.

Hmm, something smells there...

In the "worst" case there should be a maximum of 6 * 2 * 
num_online_cpus() empty magazines in the iova_cpu_rcache structures, 
i.e., 12KB per CPU. Under normal use those will contain at least some 
PFNs, but mainly every additional magazine stored in a depot is full 
with 127 PFNs, and each one of those PFNs is backed by a 40-byte struct 
iova, i.e. ~5KB per 1KB magazine. Unless that machine has many thousands 
of CPUs, if iova_magazine allocations are the top consumer of memory 
then something's gone wrong.

Thanks,
Robin.

> Signed-off-by: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
> ---
>   drivers/iommu/iova.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> index d30e453d0fb4..617bbc2b79f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> @@ -630,6 +630,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(reserve_iova);
>   
>   #define IOVA_DEPOT_DELAY msecs_to_jiffies(100)
>   
> +static struct kmem_cache *iova_magazine_cache;
> +static unsigned int iova_magazine_cache_users;
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> +
>   struct iova_magazine {
>   	union {
>   		unsigned long size;
> @@ -654,11 +658,51 @@ struct iova_rcache {
>   	struct delayed_work work;
>   };
>   
> +static int iova_magazine_cache_init(void)
> +{
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> +
> +	iova_magazine_cache_users++;
> +	if (iova_magazine_cache_users > 1)
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +
> +	iova_magazine_cache = kmem_cache_create("iommu_iova_magazine",
> +						sizeof(struct iova_magazine),
> +						0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
> +
> +	if (!iova_magazine_cache) {
> +		pr_err("Couldn't create iova magazine cache\n");
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +	}
> +
> +out_unlock:
> +	mutex_unlock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void iova_magazine_cache_fini(void)
> +{
> +	mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(!iova_magazine_cache_users))
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +
> +	iova_magazine_cache_users--;
> +	if (!iova_magazine_cache_users)
> +		kmem_cache_destroy(iova_magazine_cache);
> +
> +out_unlock:
> +	mutex_unlock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> +}
> +
>   static struct iova_magazine *iova_magazine_alloc(gfp_t flags)
>   {
>   	struct iova_magazine *mag;
>   
> -	mag = kmalloc(sizeof(*mag), flags);
> +	mag = kmem_cache_alloc(iova_magazine_cache, flags);
>   	if (mag)
>   		mag->size = 0;
>   
> @@ -667,7 +711,7 @@ static struct iova_magazine *iova_magazine_alloc(gfp_t flags)
>   
>   static void iova_magazine_free(struct iova_magazine *mag)
>   {
> -	kfree(mag);
> +	kmem_cache_free(iova_magazine_cache, mag);
>   }
>   
>   static void
> @@ -766,11 +810,17 @@ int iova_domain_init_rcaches(struct iova_domain *iovad)
>   	unsigned int cpu;
>   	int i, ret;
>   
> +	ret = iova_magazine_cache_init();
> +	if (ret)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
>   	iovad->rcaches = kcalloc(IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE,
>   				 sizeof(struct iova_rcache),
>   				 GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!iovad->rcaches)
> +	if (!iovad->rcaches) {
> +		iova_magazine_cache_fini();
>   		return -ENOMEM;
> +	}
>   
>   	for (i = 0; i < IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE; ++i) {
>   		struct iova_cpu_rcache *cpu_rcache;
> @@ -948,6 +998,7 @@ static void free_iova_rcaches(struct iova_domain *iovad)
>   
>   	kfree(iovad->rcaches);
>   	iovad->rcaches = NULL;
> +	iova_magazine_cache_fini();
>   }
>   
>   /*

Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines

[Pasha Tatashin]

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:56 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 2024-02-01 7:30 pm, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> > From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
> >
> > The magazine buffers can take gigabytes of kmem memory, dominating all
> > other allocations. For observability prurpose create named slab cache so
> > the iova magazine memory overhead can be clearly observed.
> >
> > With this change:
> >
> >> slabtop -o | head
> >   Active / Total Objects (% used)    : 869731 / 952904 (91.3%)
> >   Active / Total Slabs (% used)      : 103411 / 103974 (99.5%)
> >   Active / Total Caches (% used)     : 135 / 211 (64.0%)
> >   Active / Total Size (% used)       : 395389.68K / 411430.20K (96.1%)
> >   Minimum / Average / Maximum Object : 0.02K / 0.43K / 8.00K
> >
> > OBJS ACTIVE  USE OBJ SIZE  SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
> > 244412 244239 99%    1.00K  61103       4    244412K iommu_iova_magazine
> >   91636  88343 96%    0.03K    739     124      2956K kmalloc-32
> >   75744  74844 98%    0.12K   2367      32      9468K kernfs_node_cache
> >
> > On this machine it is now clear that magazine use 242M of kmem memory.
>
> Hmm, something smells there...
>
> In the "worst" case there should be a maximum of 6 * 2 *
> num_online_cpus() empty magazines in the iova_cpu_rcache structures,
> i.e., 12KB per CPU. Under normal use those will contain at least some
> PFNs, but mainly every additional magazine stored in a depot is full
> with 127 PFNs, and each one of those PFNs is backed by a 40-byte struct
> iova, i.e. ~5KB per 1KB magazine. Unless that machine has many thousands
> of CPUs, if iova_magazine allocations are the top consumer of memory
> then something's gone wrong.

This is an upstream kernel  + few drivers that is booted on AMD EPYC,
with 128 CPUs.

It has allocations stacks like these:
init_iova_domain+0x1ed/0x230 iommu_setup_dma_ops+0xf8/0x4b0
amd_iommu_probe_finalize.
And also init_iova_domain() calls for Google's TPU drivers 242M is
actually not that much, compared to the size of the system.

Pasha

>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/iommu/iova.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> > index d30e453d0fb4..617bbc2b79f5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> > @@ -630,6 +630,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(reserve_iova);
> >
> >   #define IOVA_DEPOT_DELAY msecs_to_jiffies(100)
> >
> > +static struct kmem_cache *iova_magazine_cache;
> > +static unsigned int iova_magazine_cache_users;
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> > +
> >   struct iova_magazine {
> >       union {
> >               unsigned long size;
> > @@ -654,11 +658,51 @@ struct iova_rcache {
> >       struct delayed_work work;
> >   };
> >
> > +static int iova_magazine_cache_init(void)
> > +{
> > +     int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +     mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> > +
> > +     iova_magazine_cache_users++;
> > +     if (iova_magazine_cache_users > 1)
> > +             goto out_unlock;
> > +
> > +     iova_magazine_cache = kmem_cache_create("iommu_iova_magazine",
> > +                                             sizeof(struct iova_magazine),
> > +                                             0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
> > +
> > +     if (!iova_magazine_cache) {
> > +             pr_err("Couldn't create iova magazine cache\n");
> > +             ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +out_unlock:
> > +     mutex_unlock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> > +
> > +     return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void iova_magazine_cache_fini(void)
> > +{
> > +     mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> > +
> > +     if (WARN_ON(!iova_magazine_cache_users))
> > +             goto out_unlock;
> > +
> > +     iova_magazine_cache_users--;
> > +     if (!iova_magazine_cache_users)
> > +             kmem_cache_destroy(iova_magazine_cache);
> > +
> > +out_unlock:
> > +     mutex_unlock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> > +}
> > +
> >   static struct iova_magazine *iova_magazine_alloc(gfp_t flags)
> >   {
> >       struct iova_magazine *mag;
> >
> > -     mag = kmalloc(sizeof(*mag), flags);
> > +     mag = kmem_cache_alloc(iova_magazine_cache, flags);
> >       if (mag)
> >               mag->size = 0;
> >
> > @@ -667,7 +711,7 @@ static struct iova_magazine *iova_magazine_alloc(gfp_t flags)
> >
> >   static void iova_magazine_free(struct iova_magazine *mag)
> >   {
> > -     kfree(mag);
> > +     kmem_cache_free(iova_magazine_cache, mag);
> >   }
> >
> >   static void
> > @@ -766,11 +810,17 @@ int iova_domain_init_rcaches(struct iova_domain *iovad)
> >       unsigned int cpu;
> >       int i, ret;
> >
> > +     ret = iova_magazine_cache_init();
> > +     if (ret)
> > +             return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> >       iovad->rcaches = kcalloc(IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE,
> >                                sizeof(struct iova_rcache),
> >                                GFP_KERNEL);
> > -     if (!iovad->rcaches)
> > +     if (!iovad->rcaches) {
> > +             iova_magazine_cache_fini();
> >               return -ENOMEM;
> > +     }
> >
> >       for (i = 0; i < IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE; ++i) {
> >               struct iova_cpu_rcache *cpu_rcache;
> > @@ -948,6 +998,7 @@ static void free_iova_rcaches(struct iova_domain *iovad)
> >
> >       kfree(iovad->rcaches);
> >       iovad->rcaches = NULL;
> > +     iova_magazine_cache_fini();
> >   }
> >
> >   /*

Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines

[Robin Murphy]

On 2024-02-01 9:06 pm, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:56 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-02-01 7:30 pm, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>>> From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
>>>
>>> The magazine buffers can take gigabytes of kmem memory, dominating all
>>> other allocations. For observability prurpose create named slab cache so
>>> the iova magazine memory overhead can be clearly observed.
>>>
>>> With this change:
>>>
>>>> slabtop -o | head
>>>    Active / Total Objects (% used)    : 869731 / 952904 (91.3%)
>>>    Active / Total Slabs (% used)      : 103411 / 103974 (99.5%)
>>>    Active / Total Caches (% used)     : 135 / 211 (64.0%)
>>>    Active / Total Size (% used)       : 395389.68K / 411430.20K (96.1%)
>>>    Minimum / Average / Maximum Object : 0.02K / 0.43K / 8.00K
>>>
>>> OBJS ACTIVE  USE OBJ SIZE  SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
>>> 244412 244239 99%    1.00K  61103       4    244412K iommu_iova_magazine
>>>    91636  88343 96%    0.03K    739     124      2956K kmalloc-32
>>>    75744  74844 98%    0.12K   2367      32      9468K kernfs_node_cache
>>>
>>> On this machine it is now clear that magazine use 242M of kmem memory.
>>
>> Hmm, something smells there...
>>
>> In the "worst" case there should be a maximum of 6 * 2 *
>> num_online_cpus() empty magazines in the iova_cpu_rcache structures,
>> i.e., 12KB per CPU. Under normal use those will contain at least some
>> PFNs, but mainly every additional magazine stored in a depot is full
>> with 127 PFNs, and each one of those PFNs is backed by a 40-byte struct
>> iova, i.e. ~5KB per 1KB magazine. Unless that machine has many thousands
>> of CPUs, if iova_magazine allocations are the top consumer of memory
>> then something's gone wrong.
> 
> This is an upstream kernel  + few drivers that is booted on AMD EPYC,
> with 128 CPUs.
> 
> It has allocations stacks like these:
> init_iova_domain+0x1ed/0x230 iommu_setup_dma_ops+0xf8/0x4b0
> amd_iommu_probe_finalize.
> And also init_iova_domain() calls for Google's TPU drivers 242M is
> actually not that much, compared to the size of the system.

Hmm, I did misspeak slightly (it's late and I really should have left 
this for tomorrow...) - that's 12KB per CPU *per domain*, but still that 
would seem to imply well over 100 domains if you have 242MB of magazine 
allocations while the iommu_iova cache isn't even on the charts... what 
the heck is that driver doing?

(I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of the patch BTW, I just 
really want to understand the situation that prompted it, and make sure 
we don't actually have a subtle leak somewhere.)

Thanks,
Robin.

> 
> Pasha
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/iommu/iova.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>    1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>>> index d30e453d0fb4..617bbc2b79f5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>>> @@ -630,6 +630,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(reserve_iova);
>>>
>>>    #define IOVA_DEPOT_DELAY msecs_to_jiffies(100)
>>>
>>> +static struct kmem_cache *iova_magazine_cache;
>>> +static unsigned int iova_magazine_cache_users;
>>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
>>> +
>>>    struct iova_magazine {
>>>        union {
>>>                unsigned long size;
>>> @@ -654,11 +658,51 @@ struct iova_rcache {
>>>        struct delayed_work work;
>>>    };
>>>
>>> +static int iova_magazine_cache_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> +     int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +     mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
>>> +
>>> +     iova_magazine_cache_users++;
>>> +     if (iova_magazine_cache_users > 1)
>>> +             goto out_unlock;
>>> +
>>> +     iova_magazine_cache = kmem_cache_create("iommu_iova_magazine",
>>> +                                             sizeof(struct iova_magazine),
>>> +                                             0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
>>> +
>>> +     if (!iova_magazine_cache) {
>>> +             pr_err("Couldn't create iova magazine cache\n");
>>> +             ret = -ENOMEM;
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +out_unlock:
>>> +     mutex_unlock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
>>> +
>>> +     return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void iova_magazine_cache_fini(void)
>>> +{
>>> +     mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
>>> +
>>> +     if (WARN_ON(!iova_magazine_cache_users))
>>> +             goto out_unlock;
>>> +
>>> +     iova_magazine_cache_users--;
>>> +     if (!iova_magazine_cache_users)
>>> +             kmem_cache_destroy(iova_magazine_cache);
>>> +
>>> +out_unlock:
>>> +     mutex_unlock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>    static struct iova_magazine *iova_magazine_alloc(gfp_t flags)
>>>    {
>>>        struct iova_magazine *mag;
>>>
>>> -     mag = kmalloc(sizeof(*mag), flags);
>>> +     mag = kmem_cache_alloc(iova_magazine_cache, flags);
>>>        if (mag)
>>>                mag->size = 0;
>>>
>>> @@ -667,7 +711,7 @@ static struct iova_magazine *iova_magazine_alloc(gfp_t flags)
>>>
>>>    static void iova_magazine_free(struct iova_magazine *mag)
>>>    {
>>> -     kfree(mag);
>>> +     kmem_cache_free(iova_magazine_cache, mag);
>>>    }
>>>
>>>    static void
>>> @@ -766,11 +810,17 @@ int iova_domain_init_rcaches(struct iova_domain *iovad)
>>>        unsigned int cpu;
>>>        int i, ret;
>>>
>>> +     ret = iova_magazine_cache_init();
>>> +     if (ret)
>>> +             return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>>        iovad->rcaches = kcalloc(IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE,
>>>                                 sizeof(struct iova_rcache),
>>>                                 GFP_KERNEL);
>>> -     if (!iovad->rcaches)
>>> +     if (!iovad->rcaches) {
>>> +             iova_magazine_cache_fini();
>>>                return -ENOMEM;
>>> +     }
>>>
>>>        for (i = 0; i < IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE; ++i) {
>>>                struct iova_cpu_rcache *cpu_rcache;
>>> @@ -948,6 +998,7 @@ static void free_iova_rcaches(struct iova_domain *iovad)
>>>
>>>        kfree(iovad->rcaches);
>>>        iovad->rcaches = NULL;
>>> +     iova_magazine_cache_fini();
>>>    }
>>>
>>>    /*

Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines

[Pasha Tatashin]

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 4:23 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 2024-02-01 9:06 pm, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:56 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2024-02-01 7:30 pm, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> >>> From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
> >>>
> >>> The magazine buffers can take gigabytes of kmem memory, dominating all
> >>> other allocations. For observability prurpose create named slab cache so
> >>> the iova magazine memory overhead can be clearly observed.
> >>>
> >>> With this change:
> >>>
> >>>> slabtop -o | head
> >>>    Active / Total Objects (% used)    : 869731 / 952904 (91.3%)
> >>>    Active / Total Slabs (% used)      : 103411 / 103974 (99.5%)
> >>>    Active / Total Caches (% used)     : 135 / 211 (64.0%)
> >>>    Active / Total Size (% used)       : 395389.68K / 411430.20K (96.1%)
> >>>    Minimum / Average / Maximum Object : 0.02K / 0.43K / 8.00K
> >>>
> >>> OBJS ACTIVE  USE OBJ SIZE  SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
> >>> 244412 244239 99%    1.00K  61103       4    244412K iommu_iova_magazine
> >>>    91636  88343 96%    0.03K    739     124      2956K kmalloc-32
> >>>    75744  74844 98%    0.12K   2367      32      9468K kernfs_node_cache
> >>>
> >>> On this machine it is now clear that magazine use 242M of kmem memory.
> >>
> >> Hmm, something smells there...
> >>
> >> In the "worst" case there should be a maximum of 6 * 2 *
> >> num_online_cpus() empty magazines in the iova_cpu_rcache structures,
> >> i.e., 12KB per CPU. Under normal use those will contain at least some
> >> PFNs, but mainly every additional magazine stored in a depot is full
> >> with 127 PFNs, and each one of those PFNs is backed by a 40-byte struct
> >> iova, i.e. ~5KB per 1KB magazine. Unless that machine has many thousands
> >> of CPUs, if iova_magazine allocations are the top consumer of memory
> >> then something's gone wrong.
> >
> > This is an upstream kernel  + few drivers that is booted on AMD EPYC,
> > with 128 CPUs.
> >
> > It has allocations stacks like these:
> > init_iova_domain+0x1ed/0x230 iommu_setup_dma_ops+0xf8/0x4b0
> > amd_iommu_probe_finalize.
> > And also init_iova_domain() calls for Google's TPU drivers 242M is
> > actually not that much, compared to the size of the system.
>
> Hmm, I did misspeak slightly (it's late and I really should have left
> this for tomorrow...) - that's 12KB per CPU *per domain*, but still that
> would seem to imply well over 100 domains if you have 242MB of magazine
> allocations while the iommu_iova cache isn't even on the charts... what
> the heck is that driver doing?

I am not sure what the driver is doing. However, I can check the
actual allocation sizes for each init_iova_domain() and report on that
later.

>
> (I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of the patch BTW, I just
> really want to understand the situation that prompted it, and make sure
> we don't actually have a subtle leak somewhere.)

Yes, the observability is needed here, because there were several
optimizations that reduced the size of these magazines, and they still
can be large. For example, for a while we had 1032-bytes per-magazine
instead of 1024, this caused wasting almost half of magazine memroy
with 2K slabs. This was fixed with: b4c9bf178ace iommu/iova: change
IOVA_MAG_SIZE to 127 to save memory

 Also, earlier there was another optimization "32e92d9f6f87
iommu/iova: Separate out rcache init" that reduced cases when
magazines need to be allocated. That  also reduced overhead on our
systems by a factor of 10.

Yet, the magazines are still large, and I think it is time to improve
observability for the future optimizations, and avoiding future
regressions.

Pasha

Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 11:30 AM Pasha Tatashin
<pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> wrote:
>
> From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
>
> The magazine buffers can take gigabytes of kmem memory, dominating all
> other allocations. For observability prurpose create named slab cache so
> the iova magazine memory overhead can be clearly observed.
>
> With this change:
>
> > slabtop -o | head
>  Active / Total Objects (% used)    : 869731 / 952904 (91.3%)
>  Active / Total Slabs (% used)      : 103411 / 103974 (99.5%)
>  Active / Total Caches (% used)     : 135 / 211 (64.0%)
>  Active / Total Size (% used)       : 395389.68K / 411430.20K (96.1%)
>  Minimum / Average / Maximum Object : 0.02K / 0.43K / 8.00K
>
> OBJS ACTIVE  USE OBJ SIZE  SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
> 244412 244239 99%    1.00K  61103       4    244412K iommu_iova_magazine
>  91636  88343 96%    0.03K    739     124      2956K kmalloc-32
>  75744  74844 98%    0.12K   2367      32      9468K kernfs_node_cache
>
> On this machine it is now clear that magazine use 242M of kmem memory.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/iova.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> index d30e453d0fb4..617bbc2b79f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> @@ -630,6 +630,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(reserve_iova);
>
>  #define IOVA_DEPOT_DELAY msecs_to_jiffies(100)
>
> +static struct kmem_cache *iova_magazine_cache;
> +static unsigned int iova_magazine_cache_users;
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> +
>  struct iova_magazine {
>         union {
>                 unsigned long size;
> @@ -654,11 +658,51 @@ struct iova_rcache {
>         struct delayed_work work;
>  };
>
> +static int iova_magazine_cache_init(void)
> +{
> +       int ret = 0;
> +
> +       mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> +
> +       iova_magazine_cache_users++;
> +       if (iova_magazine_cache_users > 1)
> +               goto out_unlock;
> +
> +       iova_magazine_cache = kmem_cache_create("iommu_iova_magazine",
> +                                               sizeof(struct iova_magazine),
> +                                               0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);

Could this slab cache be merged with a compatible one in the slab
code? If this happens, do we still get a separate entry in
/proc/slabinfo?

It may be useful to use SLAB_NO_MERGE if the purpose is to
specifically have observability into this slab cache, but the comments
above the flag make me think I may be misunderstanding it.

Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines

[Pasha Tatashin]

> > +static int iova_magazine_cache_init(void)
> > +{
> > +       int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +       mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> > +
> > +       iova_magazine_cache_users++;
> > +       if (iova_magazine_cache_users > 1)
> > +               goto out_unlock;
> > +
> > +       iova_magazine_cache = kmem_cache_create("iommu_iova_magazine",
> > +                                               sizeof(struct iova_magazine),
> > +                                               0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
>
> Could this slab cache be merged with a compatible one in the slab
> code? If this happens, do we still get a separate entry in
> /proc/slabinfo?

Hi Yosry,

Good suggestion to check for merges. I have checked,
iommu_iova_magazine is not merged.

> It may be useful to use SLAB_NO_MERGE if the purpose is to
> specifically have observability into this slab cache, but the comments
> above the flag make me think I may be misunderstanding it.

SLAB_NO_MERGE may reduce performance, and fragmentation efficiency, it
is better to keep it as-is.

Pasha

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 5:29 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 11:30 AM Pasha Tatashin
> <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
> >
> > The magazine buffers can take gigabytes of kmem memory, dominating all
> > other allocations. For observability prurpose create named slab cache so
> > the iova magazine memory overhead can be clearly observed.
> >
> > With this change:
> >
> > > slabtop -o | head
> >  Active / Total Objects (% used)    : 869731 / 952904 (91.3%)
> >  Active / Total Slabs (% used)      : 103411 / 103974 (99.5%)
> >  Active / Total Caches (% used)     : 135 / 211 (64.0%)
> >  Active / Total Size (% used)       : 395389.68K / 411430.20K (96.1%)
> >  Minimum / Average / Maximum Object : 0.02K / 0.43K / 8.00K
> >
> > OBJS ACTIVE  USE OBJ SIZE  SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
> > 244412 244239 99%    1.00K  61103       4    244412K iommu_iova_magazine
> >  91636  88343 96%    0.03K    739     124      2956K kmalloc-32
> >  75744  74844 98%    0.12K   2367      32      9468K kernfs_node_cache
> >
> > On this machine it is now clear that magazine use 242M of kmem memory.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/iommu/iova.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> > index d30e453d0fb4..617bbc2b79f5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> > @@ -630,6 +630,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(reserve_iova);
> >
> >  #define IOVA_DEPOT_DELAY msecs_to_jiffies(100)
> >
> > +static struct kmem_cache *iova_magazine_cache;
> > +static unsigned int iova_magazine_cache_users;
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> > +
> >  struct iova_magazine {
> >         union {
> >                 unsigned long size;
> > @@ -654,11 +658,51 @@ struct iova_rcache {
> >         struct delayed_work work;
> >  };
> >
> > +static int iova_magazine_cache_init(void)
> > +{
> > +       int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +       mutex_lock(&iova_magazine_cache_mutex);
> > +
> > +       iova_magazine_cache_users++;
> > +       if (iova_magazine_cache_users > 1)
> > +               goto out_unlock;
> > +
> > +       iova_magazine_cache = kmem_cache_create("iommu_iova_magazine",
> > +                                               sizeof(struct iova_magazine),
> > +                                               0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
>
> Could this slab cache be merged with a compatible one in the slab
> code? If this happens, do we still get a separate entry in
> /proc/slabinfo?
>
> It may be useful to use SLAB_NO_MERGE if the purpose is to
> specifically have observability into this slab cache, but the comments
> above the flag make me think I may be misunderstanding it.

Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines

[Pasha Tatashin]

> Hmm, I did misspeak slightly (it's late and I really should have left
> this for tomorrow...) - that's 12KB per CPU *per domain*, but still that
> would seem to imply well over 100 domains if you have 242MB of magazine
> allocations while the iommu_iova cache isn't even on the charts... what
> the heck is that driver doing?
>
> (I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of the patch BTW, I just
> really want to understand the situation that prompted it, and make sure
> we don't actually have a subtle leak somewhere.)

Hi Robin,

The following tracing is without Google TPU, simply upstream kernel:

The iova_domain_init_rcaches is called 159 with the following stack:

 iova_domain_init_rcaches
 iommu_setup_dma_ops
 amd_iommu_probe_finalize
 bus_iommu_probe
 iommu_device_register
 iommu_init_pci
 amd_iommu_init_pci
 state_next
 iommu_go_to_state
 amd_iommu_init
 pci_iommu_init
 do_one_initcall

Each time 1536K is allocated: in total 159 * 1536K = 238.5M

The allocation happens like this:
for (IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE)
    for_each_possible_cpu()
        iova_magazine_alloc
        iova_magazine_alloc

IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE = 6
ncpu = 128
sizeof (struct iova_magazine) = 1K

6 * 128 * (1K + 1K) = 1536K

Pasha

Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines

[Robin Murphy]

On 02/02/2024 6:04 pm, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>> Hmm, I did misspeak slightly (it's late and I really should have left
>> this for tomorrow...) - that's 12KB per CPU *per domain*, but still that
>> would seem to imply well over 100 domains if you have 242MB of magazine
>> allocations while the iommu_iova cache isn't even on the charts... what
>> the heck is that driver doing?
>>
>> (I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of the patch BTW, I just
>> really want to understand the situation that prompted it, and make sure
>> we don't actually have a subtle leak somewhere.)
> 
> Hi Robin,
> 
> The following tracing is without Google TPU, simply upstream kernel:
> 
> The iova_domain_init_rcaches is called 159 with the following stack:
> 
>   iova_domain_init_rcaches
>   iommu_setup_dma_ops
>   amd_iommu_probe_finalize
>   bus_iommu_probe
>   iommu_device_register
>   iommu_init_pci
>   amd_iommu_init_pci
>   state_next
>   iommu_go_to_state
>   amd_iommu_init
>   pci_iommu_init
>   do_one_initcall
> 
> Each time 1536K is allocated: in total 159 * 1536K = 238.5M

Yikes, so it really does just have that many IOMMU groups? OK, fair 
enough, call me convinced :)

On balance though, I think I'd prefer to just stick the lifecycle 
management into iova_cache_{get,put} for simplicity - spending ~256 
bytes on another kmem_cache we might not use can hardly be significantly 
more than the extra code and static data necessary to track its usage 
separately anyway.

Thanks,
Robin.

> The allocation happens like this:
> for (IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE)
>      for_each_possible_cpu()
>          iova_magazine_alloc
>          iova_magazine_alloc
> 
> IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE = 6
> ncpu = 128
> sizeof (struct iova_magazine) = 1K
> 
> 6 * 128 * (1K + 1K) = 1536K
> 
> Pasha

Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: use named kmem_cache for iova magazines

[Pasha Tatashin]

> Yikes, so it really does just have that many IOMMU groups? OK, fair
> enough, call me convinced :)
>
> On balance though, I think I'd prefer to just stick the lifecycle
> management into iova_cache_{get,put} for simplicity - spending ~256
> bytes on another kmem_cache we might not use can hardly be significantly
> more than the extra code and static data necessary to track its usage
> separately anyway.

Sure, I will send a v2 soon.

Pasha