linux-kernel - Re: O_DIRECT question

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: <6d6a94c50701102245g6afe6aacxfcb2136baee5cbfa@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:45:12 +0800
From:	Aubrey <aubreylee@...il.com>
To:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...l.org>,
	"Hua Zhong" <hzhong@...il.com>, "Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	kenneth.w.chen@...el.com, mjt@....msk.ru
Subject: Re: O_DIRECT question

On 1/11/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:50:53 +0800
> Aubrey <aubreylee@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Firstly I want to say I'm working on no-mmu arch and uClinux.
> > After much of file operations VFS cache eat up all of the memory.
> > At this time, if an application request memory which order > 3, the
> > kernel will report failure.
>
> nommu kernels should probably run reclaim for higher-order allocations as
> well.

Here is the limitation. rebalance doesn't occur if order > 3.
/*
         * Don't let big-order allocations loop unless the caller explicitly
         * requests that.  Wait for some write requests to complete then retry.
         *
         * In this implementation, __GFP_REPEAT means __GFP_NOFAIL for order
         * <= 3, but that may not be true in other implementations.
         */
        do_retry = 0;
        if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)) {
                if ((order <= 3) || (gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT))
                        do_retry = 1;
                if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)
                        do_retry = 1;
        }
        if (do_retry) {
                blk_congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/50);
                goto rebalance;
        }

>
> That's rather a blunt instrument.  The "lumpy reclaim" patches in -mm
> provide a much better approach, but they need more work yet (although I
> don't immediately recall what's needed).

Thanks, I'll take a look.

>
> In the interim you could do the old "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
> thing, but that's terribly crude - drop_caches is really only for debugging
> and benchmarking.
>
Yes. This method can drop caches, but will fragment memory. This is
not what I want. I want cache is limited to a tunable value of the
whole memory. For example, if total memory is 128M, is there a way to
trigger reclaim when cache size > 16M?

-Aubrey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/