linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 2/5] vmscan: Kill hibernation specific reclaim logic and unify it

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:	Sun, 1 Nov 2009 22:38:13 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"linux-mm" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/5] vmscan: Kill hibernation specific reclaim logic and unify it

On Sunday 01 November 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> shrink_all_zone() was introduced by commit d6277db4ab (swsusp: rework
> memory shrinker) for hibernate performance improvement. and sc.swap_cluster_max
> was introduced by commit a06fe4d307 (Speed freeing memory for suspend).
> 
> commit a06fe4d307 said
> 
>    Without the patch:
>    Freed  14600 pages in  1749 jiffies = 32.61 MB/s (Anomolous!)
>    Freed  88563 pages in 14719 jiffies = 23.50 MB/s
>    Freed 205734 pages in 32389 jiffies = 24.81 MB/s
> 
>    With the patch:
>    Freed  68252 pages in   496 jiffies = 537.52 MB/s
>    Freed 116464 pages in   569 jiffies = 798.54 MB/s
>    Freed 209699 pages in   705 jiffies = 1161.89 MB/s
> 
> At that time, their patch was pretty worth. However, Modern Hardware
> trend and recent VM improvement broke its worth. From several reason,
> I think we should remove shrink_all_zones() at all.
> 
> detail:
> 
> 1) Old days, shrink_zone()'s slowness was mainly caused by stupid io-throttle
>   at no i/o congestion.
>   but current shrink_zone() is sane, not slow.
> 
> 2) shrink_all_zone() try to shrink all pages at a time. but it doesn't works
>   fine on numa system.
>   example)
>     System has 4GB memory and each node have 2GB. and hibernate need 1GB.
> 
>     optimal)
>        steal 500MB from each node.
>     shrink_all_zones)
>        steal 1GB from node-0.
> 
>   Oh, Cache balancing logic was broken. ;)
>   Unfortunately, Desktop system moved ahead NUMA at nowadays.
>   (Side note, if hibernate require 2GB, shrink_all_zones() never success
>    on above machine)
> 
> 3) if the node has several I/O flighting pages, shrink_all_zones() makes
>   pretty bad result.
> 
>   schenario) hibernate need 1GB
> 
>   1) shrink_all_zones() try to reclaim 1GB from Node-0
>   2) but it only reclaimed 990MB
>   3) stupidly, shrink_all_zones() try to reclaim 1GB from Node-1
>   4) it reclaimed 990MB
> 
>   Oh, well. it reclaimed twice much than required.
>   In the other hand, current shrink_zone() has sane baling out logic.
>   then, it doesn't make overkill reclaim. then, we lost shrink_zones()'s risk.
> 
> 4) SplitLRU VM always keep active/inactive ratio very carefully. inactive list only
>   shrinking break its assumption. it makes unnecessary OOM risk. it obviously suboptimal.
> 
> Then, This patch changed shrink_all_memory() to only the wrapper function of 
> do_try_to_free_pages(). it bring good reviewability and debuggability, and solve 
> above problems.
> 
> side note: Reclaim logic unificication makes two good side effect.
>  - Fix recursive reclaim bug on shrink_all_memory().
>    it did forgot to use PF_MEMALLOC. it mean the system be able to stuck into deadlock.
>  - Now, shrink_all_memory() got lockdep awareness. it bring good debuggability.

As I said previously, I don't really see a reason to keep shrink_all_memory().

Do you think that removing it will result in performance degradation?

Rafael
--
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/