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]

Message-Id: <20090609222301.8da002ae.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 9 Jun 2009 22:23:01 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:11:51 +0100 Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:55:55AM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > 
> > > > The tmpfs pages are unreclaimable and therefore should not be on the anon
> > > > lru.
> > > >
> > >
> > > tmpfs pages can be swap-backed so can be reclaimable. Regardless of what
> > > list they are on, we still need to know how many of them there are if
> > > this patch is to be avoided.
> > 
> > If they are reclaimable then why does it matter? They can be pushed out if
> > you configure zone reclaim to be that aggressive.
> > 
> 
> Because they are reclaimable by kswapd or normal direct reclaim but *not*
> reclaimable by zone_reclaim() if the zone_reclaim_mode is not configured
> appropriately.

Ah.  (zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_SWAP) == 0.  That was important info.

Couldn't the lack of RECLAIM_WRITE cause a similar problem?

> I briefly considered setting zone_reclaim_mode to 7 instead of
> 1 by default for large NUMA distances but that has other serious consequences
> such as paging in preference to going off-node as a default out-of-box
> behaviour.

Maybe we should consider that a bit harder.  At what stage does
zone_reclaim decide to give up and try a different node?  Perhaps it's
presently too reluctant to do that?

> The point of the patch is that the heuristics that avoid the scan are not
> perfect. In the event they are wrong and a useless scan occurs, the response
> of the kernel after a useless scan should not be to uselessly scan a load
> more times around the LRU lists making no progress.

It would be sad to bring back a jiffies-based thing into page reclaim. 
Wall time has little correlation with the rate of page allocation and
reclaim activity.

--
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/