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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:57 +0900 From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 2/5] mm/zsmalloc: remove shrinker compaction callbacks On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:05:42AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (03/15/16 09:52), Minchan Kim wrote: > [..] > > > > I suggested to remove shrinker compaction but while I review your > > > > first patch in this thread, I thought we need upper-bound to > > > > compact zspage so background work can bail out for latency easily. > > > > IOW, the work could give up the job. In such case, we might need > > > > fall-back scheme to continue the job. And I think that could be > > > > a shrinker. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > wouldn't this unnecessarily complicate the whole thing? we would > > > have > > > a) a compaction that can be triggered by used space > > > > Maybe, user space? :) > > haha, yes! sorry, I do quite a lot of typos. > > > > b) a compaction from zs_free() that can bail out > > > c) a compaction triggered by the shrinker. > > > > > > all 3 three can run simultaneously. > > > > Yeb. > > > > > > > > > > > _if_ we can keep every class below its watermark, we can reduce the > > > need of "c)". > > > > But the problem is timing. We cannot guarantee when background > > compaction triggers while shrinker is interop with VM so we should > > do the job instantly for the system. > > we can have pool's compaction-kthread that we will wake_up() > every time we need a compaction, with no dependency on workqueue > or shrinker. Hmm, I don't think it can work either because wake_up doesn't guarantee instant execution of the thread. I think it would be better to have both direct/background compaction.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists