linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] Call cond_resched() at bottom of main look in balance

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: <20100622114739.B563.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:23:59 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] Call cond_resched() at bottom of main look in  balance_pgdat()

> >> Kosaki's patch's goal is that kswap doesn't yield cpu if the zone doesn't meet its
> >> min watermark to avoid failing atomic allocation.
> >> But this patch could yield kswapd's time slice at any time.
> >> Doesn't the patch break your goal in bb3ab59683?
> >
> > No. it don't break.
> >
> > Typically, kswapd periodically call shrink_page_list() and it call
> > cond_resched() even if bb3ab59683 case.
> 
> Hmm. If it is, bb3ab59683 is effective really?
> 
> The bb3ab59683's goal is prevent CPU yield in case of free < min_watermark.
> But shrink_page_list can yield cpu from kswapd at any time.
> So I am not sure what is bb3ab59683's benefit.
> Did you have any number about bb3ab59683's effectiveness?
> (Of course, I know it's very hard. Just out of curiosity)
> 
> As a matter of fact, when I saw this Larry's patch, I thought it would
> be better to revert bb3ab59683. Then congestion_wait could yield CPU
> to other process.
> 
> What do you think about?

No. The goal is not prevent CPU yield. The goal is avoid unnecessary
_long_ sleep (i.e. congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10)).
Anyway we can't refuse CPU yield on UP. it lead to hangup ;)

What do you mean the number? If it mean how much reduce congestion_wait(),
it was posted a lot of time. If it mean how much reduce page allocation 
failure bug report, I think it has been observable reduced since half 
years ago. 

If you have specific worried concern, can you please share it?



--
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/