linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/swap: lru drain on memory reclaim workqueue

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, 31 May 2016 17:13:08 -0400
From:	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/swap: lru drain on memory reclaim workqueue

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 05:01:16PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> So, WQ_MEM_RECLAIM on a shared workqueue doesn't make much sense.
> That flag guarantees single concurrency level to the workqueue.  How
> would multiple users of a shared workqueue coordinate around that?
> What prevents one events_mem_unbound user from depending on, say,
> draining lru?  If lru draining requires a rescuer to guarantee forward
> progress under memory pressure, that rescuer worker must be dedicated
> for that purpose and can't be shared.

Gotchya, that fixes my understanding on the rescuer thread operation. In
this case, could we revive your previous proposal for consideration?