linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/3] mm: keep pages from unevictable mappings off the LRU lists

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: <20090323182039.6A1B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:23:36 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] mm: keep pages from unevictable mappings off the LRU  lists

> > > this is the just reason why current code don't call add_page_to_unevictable_list().
> > > add_page_to_unevictable_list() don't use pagevec. it is needed for avoiding race.
> > > 
> > > then, if readahead path (i.e. add_to_page_cache_lru()) use add_page_to_unevictable_list(),
> > > it can cause zone->lru_lock contention storm.
> > 
> > How is it different then shrink_page_list()?  If readahead put a
> > contiguous chunk of unevictable pages to the file lru, then
> > shrink_page_list() will as well call add_page_to_unevictable_list() in
> > a loop.
> 
> it's probability issue.
> 
> readahead: we need to concern
> 	(1) readahead vs readahead
> 	(2) readahead vs reclaim
> 
> vmscan: we need to concern
> 	(3) background reclaim vs foreground reclaim
> 
> So, (3) is rarely event than (1) and (2).
> Am I missing anything?

my last mail explanation is too poor. sorry.
I don't dislike this patch concept. but it seems a bit naive against contention.
if we can decrease contention risk, I can ack with presure.



--
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/