linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] mm: remove unnecessary back-off function when retrying page reclaim

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:   Thu, 02 Mar 2017 11:37:57 +0800
From:   "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
To:     "'Johannes Weiner'" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "'Jia He'" <hejianet@...il.com>, "'Michal Hocko'" <mhocko@...e.cz>,
        "'Mel Gorman'" <mgorman@...e.de>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] mm: remove unnecessary back-off function when retrying page reclaim


On March 01, 2017 5:40 AM Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 
> The backoff mechanism is not needed. If we have MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES
> loops without progress, we'll OOM anyway; backing off might cut one or
> two iterations off that in the rare OOM case. If we have intermittent
> success reclaiming a few pages, the backoff function gets reset also,
> and so is of little help in these scenarios.
> 
> We might want a backoff function for when there IS progress, but not
> enough to be satisfactory. But this isn't that. Remove it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> ---
Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>