linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH][3/4] Add reclaim support

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: <45D98711.609@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:46:33 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vatsa@...ibm.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, xemul@...ru, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	menage@...gle.com, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][3/4] Add reclaim support

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:20:53 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> + * so, is the container over it's limit. Returns 1 if the container is above
>>>> + * its limit.
>>>> + */
>>>> +int memctlr_mm_overlimit(struct mm_struct *mm, void *sc_cont)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct container *cont;
>>>> +	struct memctlr *mem;
>>>> +	long usage, limit;
>>>> +	int ret = 1;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!sc_cont)
>>>> +		goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> +	read_lock(&mm->container_lock);
>>>> +	cont = mm->container;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> + 	 * Regular reclaim, let it proceed as usual
>>>> + 	 */
>>>> +	if (!sc_cont)
>>>> +		goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> +	ret = 0;
>>>> +	if (cont != sc_cont)
>>>> +		goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> +	mem = memctlr_from_cont(cont);
>>>> +	usage = atomic_long_read(&mem->counter.usage);
>>>> +	limit = atomic_long_read(&mem->counter.limit);
>>>> +	if (limit && (usage > limit))
>>>> +		ret = 1;
>>>> +out:
>>>> +	read_unlock(&mm->container_lock);
>>>> +	return ret;
>>>> +}
>>> hm, I wonder how much additional lock traffic all this adds.
>>>
>> It's a read_lock() and most of the locks are read_locks
>> which allow for concurrent access, until the container
>> changes or goes away
> 
> read_lock isn't free, and I suspect we're calling this function pretty
> often (every pagefault?) It'll be measurable on some workloads, on some
> hardware.
> 
> It probably won't be terribly bad because each lock-taking is associated
> with a clear_page().  But still, if there's any possibility of lightening
> the locking up, now is the time to think about it.
> 

Yes, good point. I'll revisit to see if barriers can replace the locking
or if the locking is required at all?

>>>> @@ -66,6 +67,9 @@ struct scan_control {
>>>>  	int swappiness;
>>>>  
>>>>  	int all_unreclaimable;
>>>> +
>>>> +	void *container;		/* Used by containers for reclaiming */
>>>> +					/* pages when the limit is exceeded  */
>>>>  };
>>> eww.  Why void*?
>>>
>> I did not want to expose struct container in mm/vmscan.c.
> 
> It's already there, via rmap.h
> 

Yes, true

>> An additional
>> thought was that no matter what container goes in the field would be
>> useful for reclaim.
> 
> Am having trouble parsing that sentence ;)
> 
> 

The thought was that irrespective of the infrastructure that goes in
having an entry for reclaim in scan_control would be useful. I guess
the name exposes what the type tries to hide :-)

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
-
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/