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]
Message-Id: <20090820121347.8a886e4b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:13:47 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	"Dike, Jeffrey G" <jeffrey.g.dike@...el.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	"lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	"menage@...gle.com" <menage@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: do batched scans for mem_cgroup

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:49:29 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:

> For mem_cgroup, shrink_zone() may call shrink_list() with nr_to_scan=1,
> in which case shrink_list() _still_ calls isolate_pages() with the much
> larger SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX.  It effectively scales up the inactive list
> scan rate by up to 32 times.
> 
> For example, with 16k inactive pages and DEF_PRIORITY=12, (16k >> 12)=4.
> So when shrink_zone() expects to scan 4 pages in the active/inactive
> list, it will be scanned SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX=32 pages in effect.
> 
> The accesses to nr_saved_scan are not lock protected and so not 100%
> accurate, however we can tolerate small errors and the resulted small
> imbalanced scan rates between zones.
> 
> This batching won't blur up the cgroup limits, since it is driven by
> "pages reclaimed" rather than "pages scanned". When shrink_zone()
> decides to cancel (and save) one smallish scan, it may well be called
> again to accumulate up nr_saved_scan.
> 
> It could possibly be a problem for some tiny mem_cgroup (which may be
> _full_ scanned too much times in order to accumulate up nr_saved_scan).
> 
> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> CC: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
> CC: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> ---

Hmm, how about this ? 
==
Now, nr_saved_scan is tied to zone's LRU.
But, considering how vmscan works, it should be tied to reclaim_stat.

By this, memcg can make use of nr_saved_scan information seamlessly.

---
 include/linux/mmzone.h |    2 +-
 mm/vmscan.c            |   19 ++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6.31-rc6/include/linux/mmzone.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.31-rc6.orig/include/linux/mmzone.h	2009-08-17 15:14:21.000000000 +0900
+++ linux-2.6.31-rc6/include/linux/mmzone.h	2009-08-20 12:10:44.000000000 +0900
@@ -269,6 +269,7 @@
 	 */
 	unsigned long		recent_rotated[2];
 	unsigned long		recent_scanned[2];
+	unsigned long nr_saved_scan[NR_LRU_LISTS];/* accumulated for batching */
 };
 
 struct zone {
@@ -323,7 +324,6 @@
 	spinlock_t		lru_lock;	
 	struct zone_lru {
 		struct list_head list;
-		unsigned long nr_saved_scan;	/* accumulated for batching */
 	} lru[NR_LRU_LISTS];
 
 	struct zone_reclaim_stat reclaim_stat;
Index: linux-2.6.31-rc6/mm/vmscan.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.31-rc6.orig/mm/vmscan.c	2009-08-17 15:14:21.000000000 +0900
+++ linux-2.6.31-rc6/mm/vmscan.c	2009-08-20 12:17:47.000000000 +0900
@@ -1521,6 +1521,7 @@
 	enum lru_list l;
 	unsigned long nr_reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
 	unsigned long swap_cluster_max = sc->swap_cluster_max;
+	struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc);
 	int noswap = 0;
 
 	/* If we have no swap space, do not bother scanning anon pages. */
@@ -1540,12 +1541,9 @@
 			scan >>= priority;
 			scan = (scan * percent[file]) / 100;
 		}
-		if (scanning_global_lru(sc))
-			nr[l] = nr_scan_try_batch(scan,
-						  &zone->lru[l].nr_saved_scan,
-						  swap_cluster_max);
-		else
-			nr[l] = scan;
+		nr[l] = nr_scan_try_batch(scan,
+					  &recalim_stat->nr_saved_scan[l],
+					  swap_cluster_max);
 	}
 
 	while (nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] || nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] ||
@@ -2128,6 +2126,7 @@
 {
 	struct zone *zone;
 	unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
+	struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc);
 
 	for_each_populated_zone(zone) {
 		enum lru_list l;
@@ -2144,11 +2143,13 @@
 						l == LRU_ACTIVE_FILE))
 				continue;
 
-			zone->lru[l].nr_saved_scan += (lru_pages >> prio) + 1;
-			if (zone->lru[l].nr_saved_scan >= nr_pages || pass > 3) {
+			reclaim_stat->nr_saved_scan[l] +=
+						(lru_pages >> prio) + 1;
+			if (reclaim_stat->nr_saved_scan[l]
+						>= nr_pages || pass > 3) {
 				unsigned long nr_to_scan;
 
-				zone->lru[l].nr_saved_scan = 0;
+				reclaim_stat->nr_saved_scan[l] = 0;
 				nr_to_scan = min(nr_pages, lru_pages);
 				nr_reclaimed += shrink_list(l, nr_to_scan, zone,
 								sc, prio);





--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ