linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCHv4 0/3] new APIs to allocate buffer-cache with user specific flag

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]

Message-ID: <20140915011018.GA2676@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date:	Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:10:18 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, jack@...e.cz,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, minchan@...nel.org, gunho.lee@....com
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/3] new APIs to allocate buffer-cache with user
 specific flag

On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 10:14:16AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:32:48PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > I also test another approach, such as allocate freepage in CMA
> > reserved region as late as possible, which is also similar to your
> > suggestion and this doesn't works well. When reclaim is started,
> > too many pages reclaim at once, because lru list has successive pages
> > in CMA region and these doesn't help kswapd's reclaim. kswapd stop
> > reclaiming when freepage count is recovered. But, CMA pages isn't
> > counted for freepage for kswapd because they can't be usable for
> > unmovable, reclaimable allocation. So kswap reclaim too many pages
> > at once unnecessarilly.
> 
> Have you considered putting the pages in a CMA region in a separate
> zone?  After all, that's what we originally did with brain-damaged
> hardware that could only DMA into the low 16M of memory.  We just
> reserved a separate zone for that?  That way, we could do
> zone-directed reclaim and free pages in that zone, if that was what
> was actually needed.

Sorry for long delay. It was long holidays.

No, I haven't consider it. It sounds good idea to place the pages in a
CMA region into a separate zone. Perhaps we can remove one of
migratetype, MIGRATE_CMA, with this way and it would be a good long-term
architecture for CMA.

I don't know exact history and reason why CMA is implemented in current
form. Ccing some experts in this area.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html