linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] splitlru: BDI_CAP_SWAP

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806302103240.3064@blonde.site>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:55:13 +0100 (BST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] splitlru: BDI_CAP_SWAP_BACKED

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> Tmpfs is often in the same boat as anonymous memory.
> Used for shared memory segments, or for files that
> are temporary and will be gone soon.

Anonymous memory, and temporary files, are often soon gone,
okay.  But I don't find that generalization compelling; and
if they're soon gone, does it matter which lru they go on?

> If swap space runs out, tmpfs pages should not be
> scanned.

That point I like.  But I hope they'd go to the Unevictable
on systems with no swap at all (of course, as with mlocking,
that can change soon after).

> To me, this suggests they should probably continue
> to live on the *_ANON LRUs.  Worst case we make
> tmpfs pages in files that are not mmaped (/tmp use)
> start out on the inactive list, so they get evicted
> first.

Tweaking in/active I'll gladly leave to you!  Whatever
proves best.  What's worrying me is that we have always treated
shmem/tmpfs pages as file pages (e.g. in /proc/meminfo as Cached
not as SwapCached), up until the point that we retire them to
swap; but in splitlru you're sending them down another path;
then mem cgroups seem to want them as something else again.

Your SwapBacked may indeed turn out to be the only implementable
distinction, but it does worry me.  A more useful distinction,
my gut tells me, would be separate LRUs for page_mapped() and
!page_mapped(), which reflects the existing swappiness notion.

But that immediately hits the difficulty we have in switching LRU
midstream, which your SwapBacked-throughout tmpfs neatly sidesteps.

I'd really like to be able to try page_mapped/!page_mapped versus
swap-backed/file-backed, but it would need some LRU-switching
infrastructure (which might come at a prohibitive performance
cost, since it's the batching that poses the problem).

Hugh
--
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/