linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/27] mm, page_alloc: Consider dirtyable memory in terms of nodes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:27:57 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/27] mm, page_alloc: Consider dirtyable memory in terms
 of nodes

On Wed 22-06-16 16:15:21, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 21-06-16 15:15:54, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Historically dirty pages were spread among zones but now that LRUs are
> > per-node it is more appropriate to consider dirty pages in a node.
> 
> I think this should deserve a note that a behavior for 32b highmem
> systems will change and could lead to early write throttling and
> observable stalls as a result because highmem_dirtyable_memory will
> always return totalhigh_pages regardless of how much is free resp. on
> LRUs so we can overestimate it.
> 
> Highmem is usually used for LRU pages but there are other allocations
> which can use it (e.g. vmalloc). I understand how this is both an
> inherent problem of 32b with a larger high:low ratio and why it is hard
> to at least pretend we can cope with it with node based approach but we
> should at least document it.
> 
> I workaround would be to enable highmem_dirtyable_memory which can lead
> to premature OOM killer for some workloads AFAIR.
[...]
> >  static unsigned long highmem_dirtyable_memory(unsigned long total)
> >  {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> > -	int node;
> >  	unsigned long x = 0;
> > -	int i;
> > -
> > -	for_each_node_state(node, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
> > -		for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_ZONES; i++) {
> > -			struct zone *z = &NODE_DATA(node)->node_zones[i];
> >  
> > -			if (is_highmem(z))
> > -				x += zone_dirtyable_memory(z);
> > -		}
> > -	}

Hmm, I have just noticed that we have NR_ZONE_LRU_ANON resp.
NR_ZONE_LRU_FILE so we can estimate the amount of highmem contribution
to the global counters by the following or similar:

	for_each_node_state(node, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
		for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_ZONES; i++) {
			struct zone *z = &NODE_DATA(node)->node_zones[i];

			if (!is_highmem(z))
				continue;

			x += zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_PAGES) + zone_page_state(z, NR_ZONE_LRU_FILE) - high_wmark_pages(zone);
		}

high wmark reduction would be to emulate the reserve. What do you think?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs