Uladzislau Rezki [off-list ref] writes:

Hello, Daniel

quoted

@@ -1294,14 +1299,19 @@ static bool __purge_vmap_area_lazy(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
 	spin_lock(&free_vmap_area_lock);
 	llist_for_each_entry_safe(va, n_va, valist, purge_list) {
 		unsigned long nr = (va->va_end - va->va_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+		unsigned long orig_start = va->va_start;
+		unsigned long orig_end = va->va_end;
 
 		/*
 		 * Finally insert or merge lazily-freed area. It is
 		 * detached and there is no need to "unlink" it from
 		 * anything.
 		 */
-		merge_or_add_vmap_area(va,
-			&free_vmap_area_root, &free_vmap_area_list);
+		va = merge_or_add_vmap_area(va, &free_vmap_area_root,
+					    &free_vmap_area_list);
+
+		kasan_release_vmalloc(orig_start, orig_end,
+				      va->va_start, va->va_end);
 

I have some questions here. I have not analyzed kasan_releace_vmalloc()
logic in detail, sorry for that if i miss something. __purge_vmap_area_lazy()
deals with big address space, so not only vmalloc addresses it frees here,
basically it can be any, starting from 1 until ULONG_MAX, whereas vmalloc
space spans from VMALLOC_START - VMALLOC_END:

1) Should it be checked that vmalloc only address is freed or you handle
it somewhere else?

if (is_vmalloc_addr(va->va_start))
    kasan_release_vmalloc(...)

So in kasan_release_vmalloc we only free the region covered by the
shadow of orig_start to orig_end, and possibly 1 page to either side. So
it will never attempt to free an enormous area. And it will also do
nothing if called for a region where there is no shadow backin
installed.

Having said that, there should be a test on orig_start, and I've added
that in v11 - good catch.

2) Have you run any bencmarking just to see how much overhead it adds?
I am asking, because probably it make sense to add those figures to the
backlog(commit message). For example you can run:

<snip>
sudo ./test_vmalloc.sh performance
and
sudo ./test_vmalloc.sh sequential_test_order=1
<snip>

I have now done that:

Testing with test_vmalloc.sh on an x86 VM with 2 vCPUs shows that:

 - Turning on KASAN, inline instrumentation, without this feature, introuduces
   a 4.1x-4.2x slowdown in vmalloc operations.

 - Turning this on introduces the following slowdowns over KASAN:
     * ~1.76x slower single-threaded (test_vmalloc.sh performance)
     * ~2.18x slower when both cpus are performing operations
       simultaneously (test_vmalloc.sh sequential_test_order=1)

This is unfortunate but given that this is a debug feature only, not
the end of the world.

The full figures are:


Performance

                              No KASAN      KASAN original x baseline  KASAN vmalloc x baseline    x KASAN

fix_size_alloc_test            1697913            14229459       8.38       22981983      13.54       1.62
full_fit_alloc_test            1841601            15152633       8.23       17902922       9.72       1.18
long_busy_list_alloc_test     17874082            58856758       3.29      103925371       5.81       1.77
random_size_alloc_test         9356047            29544085       3.16       57871338       6.19       1.96
fix_align_alloc_test           3188968            19821620       6.22       37979436      11.91       1.92
random_size_align_alloc_te     3033507            17584339       5.80       32588942      10.74       1.85
align_shift_alloc_test             325                1154       3.55           7263      22.35       6.29
pcpu_alloc_test                 231952              278181       1.20         318977       1.38       1.15
Total Cycles              235852824254        985040965542       4.18  1733258779416       7.35       1.76

Sequential, 2 cpus

                              No KASAN      KASAN original x baseline  KASAN vmalloc x baseline    x KASAN

fix_size_alloc_test            2505806            17989253       7.18       39651038      15.82       2.20
full_fit_alloc_test            3579676            18829862       5.26       21142645       5.91       1.12
long_busy_list_alloc_test     21594983            74766736       3.46      140701363       6.52       1.88
random_size_alloc_test        10884695            34282077       3.15       91945108       8.45       2.68
fix_align_alloc_test           4133226            26304745       6.36       76163270      18.43       2.90
random_size_align_alloc_te     4261175            22927883       5.38       55236058      12.96       2.41
align_shift_alloc_test             948                4827       5.09           4144       4.37       0.86
pcpu_alloc_test                 371789              307654       0.83         374412       1.01       1.22
Total Cycles               99965417402        412710461642       4.13   897968646378       8.98       2.18
fix_size_alloc_test            2502718            17921542       7.16       39893515      15.94       2.23
full_fit_alloc_test            3547996            18675007       5.26       21330495       6.01       1.14
long_busy_list_alloc_test     21522579            74610739       3.47      139822907       6.50       1.87
random_size_alloc_test        10881507            34317349       3.15       91110531       8.37       2.65
fix_align_alloc_test           4119755            26180887       6.35       75818927      18.40       2.90
random_size_align_alloc_te     4297708            23058344       5.37       55969004      13.02       2.43
align_shift_alloc_test             956                5574       5.83           4591       4.80       0.82
pcpu_alloc_test                 306340              347014       1.13         571289       1.86       1.65
Total Cycles               99642832084        412084074628       4.14   896497227762       9.00       2.18


Regards,
Daniel

Thanks!

--
Vlad Rezki