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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:12:33 -0500
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [patch 3/7] mm: vmscan: clarify how swappiness, highest priority, memcg interact

A swappiness of 0 has a slightly different meaning for global reclaim
(may swap if file cache really low) and memory cgroup reclaim (never
swap, ever).

In addition, global reclaim at highest priority will scan all LRU
lists equal to their size and ignore other balancing heuristics.
UNLESS swappiness forbids swapping, then the lists are balanced based
on recent reclaim effectiveness.  UNLESS file cache is running low,
then anonymous pages are force-scanned.

This (total mess of a) behaviour is implicit and not obvious from the
way the code is organized.  At least make it apparent in the code flow
and document the conditions.  It will be it easier to come up with
sane semantics later.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
---
 mm/vmscan.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 648a4db..c37deaf 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1644,7 +1644,6 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
 	struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = &lruvec->reclaim_stat;
 	u64 fraction[2], denominator;
 	enum lru_list lru;
-	int noswap = 0;
 	bool force_scan = false;
 	struct zone *zone = lruvec_zone(lruvec);
 
@@ -1665,13 +1664,38 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
 
 	/* If we have no swap space, do not bother scanning anon pages. */
 	if (!sc->may_swap || (nr_swap_pages <= 0)) {
-		noswap = 1;
 		fraction[0] = 0;
 		fraction[1] = 1;
 		denominator = 1;
 		goto out;
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * Global reclaim will swap to prevent OOM even with no
+	 * swappiness, but memcg users want to use this knob to
+	 * disable swapping for individual groups completely when
+	 * using the memory controller's swap limit feature would be
+	 * too expensive.
+	 */
+	if (!global_reclaim(sc) && !vmscan_swappiness(sc)) {
+		fraction[0] = 0;
+		fraction[1] = 1;
+		denominator = 1;
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * Do not apply any pressure balancing cleverness when the
+	 * system is close to OOM, scan both anon and file equally
+	 * (unless the swappiness setting disagrees with swapping).
+	 */
+	if (!sc->priority && vmscan_swappiness(sc)) {
+		fraction[0] = 1;
+		fraction[1] = 1;
+		denominator = 1;
+		goto out;
+	}
+
 	anon  = get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON) +
 		get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON);
 	file  = get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE) +
@@ -1753,13 +1777,10 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
 		unsigned long scan;
 
 		size = get_lru_size(lruvec, lru);
-		if (sc->priority || noswap || !vmscan_swappiness(sc)) {
-			scan = size >> sc->priority;
-			if (!scan && force_scan)
-				scan = min(size, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX);
-			scan = div64_u64(scan * fraction[file], denominator);
-		} else
-			scan = size;
+		scan = size >> sc->priority;
+		if (!scan && force_scan)
+			scan = min(size, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX);
+		scan = div64_u64(scan * fraction[file], denominator);
 		nr[lru] = scan;
 	}
 }
-- 
1.7.11.7

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ