linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remove throttle_vm

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: <E1IdQJn-0002Cv-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:00:43 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove throttle_vm_writeout()

> > 1) File backed pages -> file
> > 
> >   dirty + writeback count remains constant
> > 
> > 2) Anonymous pages -> swap
> > 
> >   writeback count increases, dirty balancing will hold back file
> >   writeback in favor of swap
> > 
> > So the real question is: does case 2 need rate limiting, or is it OK
> > to let the device queue fill with swap pages as fast as possible?
> 
> > Because balance_dirty_pages() maintains:
> 
>  nr_dirty + nr_unstable + nr_writeback < 
> 	total_dirty + nr_cpus * ratelimit_pages
> 
> throttle_vm_writeout() _should_ not deadlock on that, unless you're
> caught in the error term: nr_cpus * ratelimit_pages. 

And it does get caught on that in small memory machines.  This
deadlock is easily reproducable on a 32MB UML instance.  I haven't yet
tested with the per-bdi patches, but I don't think they make a
difference in this case.

> Which can only happen when it is larger than 10% of dirty_thresh.
> 
> Which is even more unlikely since it doesn't account nr_dirty (as I
> think it should).

I think nr_dirty is totally irrelevant.  Since we don't care about
case 1), and in case 2) nr_dirty doesn't play any role.

> As for 2), yes I think having a limit on the total number of pages in
> flight is a good thing.

Why?

> But that said, there might be better ways to do that.

Sure, if we do need to globally limit the number of under-writeback
pages, then I think we need to do it independently of the dirty
accounting.

Miklos
-
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/