linux-kernel - Re: [patch v3] swap: virtual swap readahead

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:30:07 +0200
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v3] swap: virtual swap readahead

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:32:49PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:11:32 +0800
> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 03:45:08PM +0800, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Hi Fengguang,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 01:03:42PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 03:37:02AM +0800, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:01:28PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > > > [resend with lists cc'd, sorry]
> > > > > 
> > > > > [and fixed Hugh's email.  crap]
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > here is a new iteration of the virtual swap readahead.  Per Hugh's
> > > > > > suggestion, I moved the pte collecting to the callsite and thus out
> > > > > > ouf swap code.  Unfortunately, I had to bound page_cluster due to an
> > > > > > array of that many swap entries on the stack, but I think it is better
> > > > > > to limit the cluster size to a sane maximum than using dynamic
> > > > > > allocation for this purpose.
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Johannes,
> > > > 
> > > > When stress testing your patch, I found it triggered many OOM kills.
> > > > Around the time of last OOMs, the memory usage is:
> > > > 
> > > >              total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
> > > > Mem:           474        468          5          0          0        239
> > > > -/+ buffers/cache:        229        244
> > > > Swap:         1023        221        802
> > > 
> > > Wow, that really confused me for a second as we shouldn't read more
> > > pages ahead than without the patch, probably even less under stress.
> > 
> > Yup - swap readahead is much more challenging than sequential readahead,
> > in that it must be accurate enough given some really obscure patterns.
> > 
> > > So the problem has to be a runaway reading.  And indeed, severe
> > > stupidity here:
> > > 
> > > +       window = cluster << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > +       min = addr & ~(window - 1);
> > > +       max = min + cluster;
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * To keep the locking/highpte mapping simple, stay
> > > +        * within the PTE range of one PMD entry.
> > > +        */
> > > +       limit = addr & PMD_MASK;
> > > +       if (limit > min)
> > > +               min = limit;
> > > +       limit = pmd_addr_end(addr, max);
> > > +       if (limit < max)
> > > +               max = limit;
> > > +       limit = max - min;
> > > 
> > > The mistake is at the initial calculation of max.  It should be
> > > 
> > > 	max = min + window;
> > > 
> > > The resulting problem is that min could get bigger than max when
> > > cluster is bigger than PMD_SHIFT.  Did you use page_cluster == 5?
> > 
> > No I use the default 3.
> > 
> > btw, the mistake reflects bad named variables. How about rename
> >         cluster => pages
> >         window  => bytes
> > ?

Proven twice, fixed in v4.

> > > The initial min is aligned to a value below the PMD boundary and max
> > > based on it with a too small offset, staying below the PMD boundary as
> > > well.  When min is rounded up, this becomes a bit large:
> > > 
> > > 	limit = max - min;
> > > 
> > > So if my brain is already functioning, fixing the initial max should
> > > be enough because either
> > > 
> > > 	o window is smaller than PMD_SIZE, than we won't round down
> > > 	below a PMD boundary in the first place or
> > > 
> > > 	o window is bigger than PMD_SIZE, than we can round down below
> > > 	a PMD boundary but adding window to that is garuanteed to
> > > 	cross the boundary again
> > > 
> > > and thus max is always bigger than min.
> > > 
> > > Fengguang, does this make sense?  If so, the patch below should fix
> > > it.
> > 
> > Too bad, a quick test of the below patch freezes the box..
> > 
> 
> +	window = cluster << PAGE_SHIFT;
> +	min = addr & ~(window - 1);
> +	max = min + cluster;
> 
> max = min + window; # this is fixed. then,
> 
> +	/*
> +	 * To keep the locking/highpte mapping simple, stay
> +	 * within the PTE range of one PMD entry.
> +	 */
> +	limit = addr & PMD_MASK;
> +	if (limit > min)
> +		min = limit;
> +	limit = pmd_addr_end(addr, max);
> +	if (limit < max)
> +		max = limit;
> +	limit = max - min;
> 
> limit = (max - min) >> PAGE_SHIFT;

Head -> desk.

Fixed in v4, thank you.

	Hannes
--
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/