linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] vmscan: simplify shrink_inactive

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: <20100415165416.GV18855@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:54:16 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] vmscan: simplify shrink_inactive_list()

> It's a buying-time venture, I'll agree but as both approaches are only
> about reducing stack stack they wouldn't be long-term solutions by your
> criteria. What do you suggest?

(from easy to more complicated):

- Disable direct reclaim with 4K stacks
- Do direct reclaim only on separate stacks
- Add interrupt stacks to any 8K stack architectures.
- Get rid of 4K stacks completely
- Think about any other stackings that could give large scale recursion
and find ways to run them on separate stacks too.
- Long term: maybe we need 16K stacks at some point, depending on how
good the VM gets. Alternative would be to stop making Linux more complicated,
but that's unlikely to happen.


-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/