linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] mm/compaction: enhance compaction finish condition

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, 02 Feb 2015 15:07:17 +0100
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] mm/compaction: enhance compaction finish condition

On 02/02/2015 02:23 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 2015-02-02 19:20 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>:
>> On 02/02/2015 08:15 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>
>> So I've realized that this problaby won't always work as intended :/ Because we
>> still differ from what page allocator does.
>> Consider we compact for UNMOVABLE allocation. First we try RECLAIMABLE fallback.
>> Turns out we could fallback, but not steal, hence we skip it due to
>> only_stealable == true. So we try MOVABLE, and turns out we can steal, so we
>> finish compaction.
>> Then the allocation attempt follows, and it will fallback to RECLAIMABLE,
>> without extra stealing. The compaction decision for MOVABLE was moot.
>> Is it a big problem? Probably not, the compaction will still perform some extra
>> anti-fragmentation on average, but we should consider it.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> First of all, thanks for quick review. :)
> 
> Hmm... I don't get it. Is this case possible in current implementation?
> can_steal_fallback() decides whether steal is possible or not, based
> on freepage order
> and start_migratetype. If fallback freepage is on RECLAIMABLE and
> MOVABLE type and
> they are same order, can_steal could be true for both or false for
> neither. If order is
> different, compaction decision would be recognized by
> __rmqueue_fallback() since it
> try to find freepage from high order to low order.

Ah, right, I got confused into thinking that the result of can_steal depends on
how many freepages it found within the pageblock to steal. Sorry about the noise.
--
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/