linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] mm: system wide ALLOC_NO

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:	Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:27:47 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Steve Dickson <SteveD@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] mm: system wide ALLOC_NO_WATERMARK

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 
> > > > Because a block device may have deadlocked here, leaving the system 
> > > > unable to clean dirty memory, or unable to load executables over the 
> > > > network for example.
> > > 
> > > So this is a locking problem that has not been taken care of?
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > It's very simple:
> > 
> > 1) memory becomes full
> 
> We do have limits to avoid memory getting too full.
> 
> > 2) we try to free memory by paging or swapping
> > 3) I/O requires a memory allocation which fails because memory is full
> > 4) box dies because it's unable to dig itself out of OOM
> > 
> > Most I/O paths can deal with this by having a mempool for their I/O
> > needs. For network I/O, this turns out to be prohibitively hard due to
> > the complexity of the stack.
> 
> The common solution is to have a reserve (min_free_kbytes). The problem 
> with the network stack seems to be that the amount of reserve needed 
> cannot be predicted accurately.
> 
> The solution may be as simple as configuring the reserves right and 
> avoid the unbounded memory allocations. That is possible if one 
> would make sure that the network layer triggers reclaim once in a 
> while.

Such a simple fix would be attractive.  Some of the net drivers now have
remarkably large rx and tx queues.  One wonders if this is playing a part
in the problem and whether reducing the queue sizes would help.

I guess we'd need to reduce the queue size on all NICs in the machine
though, which might be somewhat of a performance problem.

I don't think we've seen a lot of justification for those large queues. 
I'm suspecting it's a few percent in carefully-chosen workloads (of the
microbenchmark kind?)

-
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/