linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] Use io_schedule() instead schedule()

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: <20091215090441.CDB0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:56:49 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	lwoodman@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] Use io_schedule() instead schedule()

> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:30:54 +0900 (JST)
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > All task sleeping point in vmscan (e.g. congestion_wait) use
> > io_schedule. then shrink_zone_begin use it too.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/vmscan.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 3562a2d..0880668 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -1624,7 +1624,7 @@ static int shrink_zone_begin(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
> >  		    max_zone_concurrent_reclaimers)
> >  			break;
> >  
> > -		schedule();
> > +		io_schedule();
> 
> Hmm. We have many cond_resched which is not io_schedule in vmscan.c.

cond_resched don't mean sleep on wait queue. it's similar to yield.

> In addition, if system doesn't have swap device space and out of page cache 
> due to heavy memory pressue, VM might scan & drop pages until priority is zero
> or zone is unreclaimable. 
> 
> I think it would be not a IO wait.

two point.
1. For long time, Administrator usually watch iowait% at heavy memory pressure. I
don't hope change this without reasonable reason. 2. iowait makes scheduler
bonus a bit, vmscan task should have many time slice than memory consume
task. it improve VM stabilization.

but I agree the benefit isn't so big. if we have reasonable reason, I
don't oppose use schedule().



--
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/