linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] vmscan: Do not writeback pages in direct reclaim

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: <20100611125455.GC8798@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:54:55 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] vmscan: Do not writeback pages in direct reclaim

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:17:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue,  8 Jun 2010 10:02:25 +0100 Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> 
> > When memory is under enough pressure, a process may enter direct
> > reclaim to free pages in the same manner kswapd does. If a dirty page is
> > encountered during the scan, this page is written to backing storage using
> > mapping->writepage. This can result in very deep call stacks, particularly
> > if the target storage or filesystem are complex. It has already been observed
> > on XFS that the stack overflows but the problem is not XFS-specific.
> > 
> > This patch prevents direct reclaim writing back pages by not setting
> > may_writepage in scan_control. Instead, dirty pages are placed back on the
> > LRU lists for either background writing by the BDI threads or kswapd. If
> > in direct lumpy reclaim and dirty pages are encountered, the process will
> > kick the background flushter threads before trying again.
> > 
> 
> This wouldn't have worked at all well back in the days when you could
> dirty all memory with MAP_SHARED. 

Yes, it would have been a bucket of fail.

> The balance_dirty_pages() calls on
> the fault path will now save us but if for some reason we were ever to
> revert those, we'd need to revert this change too, I suspect.
> 

Quite likely.

> As it stands, it would be wildly incautious to make a change like
> this without first working out why we're pulling so many dirty pages
> off the LRU tail, and fixing that.
> 

Ok, I have a series prepared for testing that is in three parts.

Patches 1-4: tracepoints to gather how many dirty pages there really are
	being written out on the LRU
Patches 5-10: reduce the stack usage in page reclaim
Patches 9-10: Avoid writing out pages from direct reclaim and instead
	kicking background flushers to do the writing

Patches 1-4 on its own should an accurate view of how many dirty pages are
really being written back and if it's a real problem or not.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/