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: <20100610231706.1d7528f2.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jun 2010 23:17:06 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
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 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.  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.


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.

--
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/