All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] malloc: work around some memalign fragmentation issues
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:27:02 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56A79E56.70202@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160126095402.1c80368a@amdc2363>

On 01/26/2016 01:54 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>
>> Use of memalign can trigger fragmentation issues such as:
>>
>> // Internally, this needs to find a free block quite bit larger than
>> s. // Once the free region is found, any unaligned "padding"
>> immediately // before and after the block is marked free, so that the
>> allocation // takes only s bytes (plus malloc header overhead).
>> p = memalign(a, s);
>> // If there's little fragmentation so far, this allocation is likely
>> // located immediately after p.
>> p2 = malloc(x);
>> free(p);
>> // In theory, this should return the same value for p. However, the
>> hole // left by the free() call is only s in size (plus malloc header
>> overhead) // whereas memalign searches for a larger block in order to
>> guarantee it // can adjust the returned pointer to the alignment
>> requirements. Hence, // the pointer returned, if any, won't be p. If
>> there's little or no space // left after p2, this allocation will
>> fail. p = memalign(a, s);
>>
>> In practice, this issue occurs when running the "dfu" command
>> repeatedly on NVIDIA Tegra boards, since DFU allocates a large 32M
>> data buffer, and then initializes the USB controller. If this is the
>> first time USB has been used in the U-Boot session, this causes a
>> probe of the USB driver, which causes various allocations, including
>> a strdup() of a GPIO name when requesting the VBUS GPIO. When DFU is
>> torn down, the USB driver is left probed, and hence its memory is
>> left allocated. If "dfu" is executed again, allocation of the 32M
>> data buffer fails as described above.
>>
>> In practice, there is a memory hole exactly large enough to hold the
>> 32M data buffer than DFU needs. However, memalign() can't know that
>> in a general way. Given that, it's particularly annoying that the
>> allocation fails!
>>
>> The issue is that memalign() tries to allocate something larger to
>> guarantee the ability to align the returned pointer. This patch
>> modifies memalign() so that if the "general case" over-sized
>> allocation fails, another allocation is attempted, of the exact size
>> the user desired. If that allocation just happens to be aligned in
>> the way the user wants, (and in the case described above, it will be,
>> since the free memory region is located where a previous identical
>> allocation was located), the pointer can be returned.
>>
>> This patch is somewhat related to 806bd245b1ab "dfu: don't keep
>> freeing/reallocating". That patch worked around the issue by removing
>> repeated free/memalign within a single execution of "dfu". However,
>> the same technique can't be applied across multiple invocations, since
>> there's no reason to keep the DFU buffer allocated while DFU isn't
>> running. This patch addresses the root-cause a bit more directly.
>>
>> This problem highlights some of the disadvantages of dynamic
>> allocation and deferred probing of devices.
>>
>> This patch isn't checkpatch-clean, since it conforms to the existing
>> coding style in dlmalloc.c, which is different to the rest of U-Boot.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   common/dlmalloc.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/common/dlmalloc.c b/common/dlmalloc.c
>> index b5bb05191c24..2b964d16b11e 100644
>> --- a/common/dlmalloc.c
>> +++ b/common/dlmalloc.c
>> @@ -2829,6 +2829,28 @@ Void_t* mEMALIGn(alignment, bytes) size_t
>> alignment; size_t bytes; nb = request2size(bytes);
>>     m  = (char*)(mALLOc(nb + alignment + MINSIZE));
>>
>> +  /*
>> +  * The attempt to over-allocate (with a size large enough to
>> guarantee the
>> +  * ability to find an aligned region within allocated memory)
>> failed.
>> +  *
>> +  * Try again, this time only allocating exactly the size the user
>> wants. If
>> +  * the allocation now succeeds and just happens to be aligned, we
>> can still
>> +  * fulfill the user's request.
>> +  */
>> +  if (m == NULL) {
>> +    /*
>> +     * Use bytes not nb, since mALLOc internally calls request2size
>> too, and
>> +     * each call increases the size to allocate, to account for the
>> header.
>> +     */
>> +    m  = (char*)(mALLOc(bytes));
>> +    /* Aligned -> return it */
>> +    if ((((unsigned long)(m)) % alignment) == 0)
>> +      return m;
>> +    /* Otherwise, fail */
>> +    fREe(m);
>> +    return NULL;
>> +  }
>> +
>>     if (m == NULL) return NULL; /* propagate failure */
>>
>>     p = mem2chunk(m);
>
> U-boot's ./common/dlmalloc.c file is from year 2000 (version 2.6.6).
> I'm just wondering if there exists newer version of this code (and can
> be easily ported to u-boot).

There certainly are newer versions:

http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/html/malloc.html

The changelog in the source doesn't appear to address issues such as 
this one. Equally, a very brief inspection of the latest implementation 
of memalign() seems like it would suffer from the same issue. I don't 
know if there are any other internal changes (e.g. perhaps bucketing 
free areas by size/alignment or similar) that might avoid the issue.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-26 16:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-25 21:03 [U-Boot] [PATCH] malloc: work around some memalign fragmentation issues Stephen Warren
2016-01-25 22:14 ` Tom Rini
2016-01-26  8:54 ` Lukasz Majewski
2016-01-26 16:27   ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2016-01-26 23:26     ` Tom Rini
2016-02-02  1:57 ` [U-Boot] " Tom Rini

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=56A79E56.70202@wwwdotorg.org \
    --to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.