linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH] Make memory reclaim from inodes and dentry cache more scalable

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 08 May 2012 13:00:09 -0700
From:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] Make memory reclaim from inodes and dentry cache
 more scalable

On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 15:06 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> The following patch detects when inodes and dentries cache are really
> low in free entries, and skip reclamation of memory from them when it is
> futile to do so.  We only resume reclaiming memory from inodes and
> dentries cache when we have a reasonable amount of memory there. 
> This avoided us bottlenecking on sb_lock to do useless memory
> reclamation.  
> 
> I assume that it is okay to check super block's number of free objects
> content without sb_lock as we are holding shrinker list's read lock. The
> shrinker is still registered so super block is not yet deactivated which
> requires shrinker un-registration.  It will be great if Al can help to
> comment on whether this assumption is okay.
> 
> In a test scenario where page cache is putting heavy pressure on memory
> usage with large number of processes, we saw very heavy contention on
> the sb_lock to get free pages as seen in the following profile. The
> patch helped to reduce the runtime by almost a factor of 4.
> 
>     62.81%               cp  [kernel.kallsyms]           [k] _raw_spin_lock
>                          |
>                          --- _raw_spin_lock
>                             |
>                             |--45.19%-- grab_super_passive
>                             |          prune_super
>                             |          shrink_slab
>                             |          do_try_to_free_pages
>                             |          try_to_free_pages
>                             |          __alloc_pages_nodemask
>                             |          alloc_pages_current
> 
> 
> Tim


Hi Al, 

Want to ping you again to see what your thoughts are on this patch I've
sent a week ago.

Thanks.

Tim


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