linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA

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:	Tue,  9 Jun 2009 17:45:02 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	yanmin.zhang@...el.com, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	linuxram@...ibm.com, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA

Hi

> > > @@ -1192,6 +1192,15 @@ static struct ctl_table vm_table[] = {
> > >  		.extra1		= &zero,
> > >  	},
> > >  	{
> > > +		.ctl_name       = CTL_UNNUMBERED,
> > > +		.procname       = "zone_reclaim_interval",
> > > +		.data           = &zone_reclaim_interval,
> > > +		.maxlen         = sizeof(zone_reclaim_interval),
> > > +		.mode           = 0644,
> > > +		.proc_handler   = &proc_dointvec_jiffies,
> > > +		.strategy       = &sysctl_jiffies,
> > > +	},
> > 
> > hmmm, I think nobody can know proper interval settings on his own systems.
> > I agree with Wu. It can be hidden.
> > 
> 
> For the few users that case, I expect the majority of those will choose
> either 0 or the default value of 30. They might want to alter this while
> setting zone_reclaim_mode if they don't understand the different values
> it can have for example.
> 
> My preference would be that this not exist at all but the
> scan-avoidance-heuristic has to be perfect to allow that.

Ah, I didn't concern interval==0. thanks.
I can ack this now, but please add documentation about interval==0 meaning?




> > > @@ -2414,6 +2426,16 @@ int zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> > >  	ret = __zone_reclaim(zone, gfp_mask, order);
> > >  	zone_clear_flag(zone, ZONE_RECLAIM_LOCKED);
> > >  
> > > +	if (!ret) {
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * We were unable to reclaim enough pages to stay on node and
> > > +		 * unable to detect in advance that the scan would fail. Allow
> > > +		 * off node accesses for zone_reclaim_inteval jiffies before
> > > +		 * trying zone_reclaim() again
> > > +		 */
> > > +		zone->zone_reclaim_failure = jiffies;
> > 
> > Oops, this simple assignment don't care jiffies round-trip.
> > 
> 
> Here it is just recording the jiffies value. The real smarts with the counter
> use time_before() which I assumed could handle jiffie wrap-arounds. Even
> if it doesn't, the consequence is that one scan will occur that could have
> been avoided around the time of the jiffie wraparound. The value will then
> be reset and it will be fine.

time_before() assume two argument are enough nearly time.
if we use 32bit cpu and HZ=1000, about jiffies wraparound about one month.

Then, 

1. zone reclaim failure occur
2. system works fine for one month
3. jiffies wrap and time_before() makes mis-calculation.

I think.



--
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/