linux-kernel - Re: [patch v3 -mm 1/3] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code

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:	Wed, 15 May 2013 12:34:04 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 -mm 1/3] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with
 zone shrinking code

On 05/13/2013 11:46 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Memcg soft reclaim has been traditionally triggered from the global
> reclaim paths before calling shrink_zone. mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim
> then picked up a group which exceeds the soft limit the most and
> reclaimed it with 0 priority to reclaim at least SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages.
> 
> The infrastructure requires per-node-zone trees which hold over-limit
> groups and keep them up-to-date (via memcg_check_events) which is not
> cost free. Although this overhead hasn't turned out to be a bottle neck
> the implementation is suboptimal because mem_cgroup_update_tree has no
> idea which zones consumed memory over the limit so we could easily end
> up having a group on a node-zone tree having only few pages from that
> node-zone.
> 
> This patch doesn't try to fix node-zone trees management because it
> seems that integrating soft reclaim into zone shrinking sounds much
> easier and more appropriate for several reasons.
> First of all 0 priority reclaim was a crude hack which might lead to
> big stalls if the group's LRUs are big and hard to reclaim (e.g. a lot
> of dirty/writeback pages).
> Soft reclaim should be applicable also to the targeted reclaim which is
> awkward right now without additional hacks.
> Last but not least the whole infrastructure eats quite some code.
> 
> After this patch shrink_zone is done in 2 passes. First it tries to do the
> soft reclaim if appropriate (only for global reclaim for now to keep
> compatible with the original state) and fall back to ignoring soft limit
> if no group is eligible to soft reclaim or nothing has been scanned
> during the first pass. Only groups which are over their soft limit or
> any of their parents up the hierarchy is over the limit are considered
> eligible during the first pass.
> 
> Soft limit tree which is not necessary anymore will be removed in the
> follow up patch to make this patch smaller and easier to review.
> 
> Changes since v1
> - __shrink_zone doesn't return the number of shrunk groups as nr_scanned
>   test covers both no groups scanned and no pages from the required zone
>   as pointed by Johannes
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>

Patch looks fine to me

Reviewed-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@...nvz.org>


--
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/