linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] xfs: Don't use PF

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: <20091118221642.GN9467@discord.disaster>
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:16:42 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs-masters@....sgi.com,
	xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] xfs: Don't use PF_MEMALLOC

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 05:56:46PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:23:43PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > 
> > > Non MM subsystem must not use PF_MEMALLOC. Memory reclaim need few
> > > memory, anyone must not prevent it. Otherwise the system cause
> > > mysterious hang-up and/or OOM Killer invokation.
> > 
> > The xfsbufd is a woken run by a registered memory shaker. i.e. it
> > runs when the system needs to reclaim memory. It forceѕ the
> > delayed write metadata buffers (of which there can be a lot) to disk
> > so that they can be reclaimed on IO completion. This IO submission
> > may require ѕome memory to be allocated to be able to free that
> > memory.
> > 
> > Hence, AFAICT the use of PF_MEMALLOC is valid here.
> 
> Thanks a lot. 
> I have one additional question, may I ask you?
> 
> How can we calculate maximum memory usage in xfsbufd?

It doesn't get calculated at the moment. It is very difficult to
calculate a usable size metric for it because there are multiple
caches (up to 3 per filesystem), and dentry/inode reclaim causes the
size of the cache to grow.  Hence the size of the cache is not
really something that can be considered a stable or predictable
input into a "reclaim now" calculation. As such we simply cause
xfsbufd run simultaneously with the shrinkers that cause it to
grow....

> I'm afraid that VM and XFS works properly but adding two makes memory exhaust.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

> And, I conclude XFS doesn't need sharing reservation memory with VM,
> it only need non failed allocation. right? IOW I'm prefer perter's
> suggestion.

Right. However, it is worth keeping in mind that this is a
performance critical path for inode reclaim.  Hence any throttling
of allocation will slow down the rate at which memory is freed by
the system....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/