netdev - Re: [PATCH 02/13] mm: sl[au]b: Add knowledge of PFMEMALLOC reserve pages

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:	Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:59:40 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux-Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] mm: sl[au]b: Add knowledge of PFMEMALLOC reserve
 pages

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:37:58PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:36:43 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If there are full empty slabs and we were not forced to
> > +		 * allocate a slab, mark this one !pfmemalloc
> > +		 */
> > +		l3 = cachep->nodelists[numa_mem_id()];
> > +		if (!list_empty(&l3->slabs_free) && force_refill) {
> > +			struct slab *slabp = virt_to_slab(objp);
> > +			slabp->pfmemalloc = false;
> > +			clear_obj_pfmemalloc(&objp);
> > +			check_ac_pfmemalloc(cachep, ac);
> > +			return objp;
> > +		}
> 
> The comment doesn't match the code.  I think you need to remove the words
> "full" and "not" assuming the code is correct which it probably is...
> 

I'll fix up the comment, you're right, it's confusing.

> But the code seems to be much more complex than Peter's original, and I don't
> see the gain.
> 

You're right, it is more complex.

> Peter's code had only one 'reserved' flag for each kmem_cache. 

The reserve was set in a per-cpu structure so there was a "lag" time
before that information was available to other CPUs. Fine on smaller
machines but a bit more of a problem today. 

> You seem to
> have one for every slab.  I don't see the point.
> It is true that yours is in some sense more fair - but I'm not sure the
> complexity is worth it.
> 

More fairness was one of the objects.

> Was there some particular reason you made the change?
> 

This version survives under considerably more stress than Peter's
original version did without requiring the additional complexity of
memory reserves.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html