linux-kernel - Re: Swappiness vs. mmap() and interactive response

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: <1240906292.7620.79.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:11:32 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Elladan <elladan@...imo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Swappiness vs. mmap() and interactive response

On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 13:28 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 14:35 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> (cc to linux-mm and Rik)
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > So, I just set up Ubuntu Jaunty (using Linux 2.6.28) on a quad core phenom box,
> >> > and then I did the following (with XFS over LVM):
> >> >
> >> > mv /500gig/of/data/on/disk/one /disk/two
> >> >
> >> > This quickly caused the system to. grind.. to... a.... complete..... halt.
> >> > Basically every UI operation, including the mouse in Xorg, started experiencing
> >> > multiple second lag and delays.  This made the system essentially unusable --
> >> > for example, just flipping to the window where the "mv" command was running
> >> > took 10 seconds on more than one occasion.  Basically a "click and get coffee"
> >> > interface.
> >>
> >> I have some question and request.
> >>
> >> 1. please post your /proc/meminfo
> >> 2. Do above copy make tons swap-out? IOW your disk read much faster than write?
> >> 3. cache limitation of memcgroup solve this problem?
> >> 4. Which disk have your /bin and /usr/bin?
> >>
> >
> > FWIW I fundamentally object to 3 as being a solution.
> >
> 
> memcgroup were not created to solve latency problems, but they do
> isolate memory and if that helps latency, I don't see why that is a
> problem. I don't think isolating applications that we think are not
> important and interfere or consume more resources than desired is a
> bad solution.

So being able to isolate is a good excuse for poor replacement these
days?

Also, exactly because its isolated/limited its sub-optimal.


> > I still think the idea of read-ahead driven drop-behind is a good one,
> > alas last time we brought that up people thought differently.
> 
> I vaguely remember the patches, but can't recollect the details.

A quick google gave me this:

  http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/21/219


--
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/