| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100819014249.GA22092@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:42:49 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To: "Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [TESTCASE] Clean pages clogging the VM
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:07:31AM +0800, Wu, Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:06:13AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 04:13:08PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Hi Matthew,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:50:01PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No comment on this? Was it just that I posted it during the VM summit?
> > >
> > > I have not forgotten about it. I just have a hard time reproducing
> > > those extreme stalls you observed.
> > >
> > > Running that test on a 2.5GHz machine with 2G of memory gives me
> > > stalls of up to half a second. The patchset I am experimenting with
> > > gets me down to peaks of 70ms, but it needs further work.
> > >
> > > Mapped file pages get two rounds on the LRU list, so once the VM
> > > starts scanning, it has to go through all of them twice and can only
> > > reclaim them on the second encounter.
> > >
> > > At that point, since we scan without making progress, we start waiting
> > > for IO, which is not happening in this case, so we sit there until a
> > > timeout expires.
> >
> > Right, this could lead to some 1s stall. Shaohua and me also noticed
> > this when investigating the responsiveness issues. And we are wondering
> > if it makes sense to do congestion_wait() only when the bdi is really
> > congested? There are no IO underway anyway in this case.
> >
> > > This stupid-waiting can be improved, and I am working on that. But
> >
> > Yeah, stupid waiting :)
How about this one?
Subject: mm: check device is really congested before sleep in direct page reclaim
congestion_wait() blindly sleep without checking if device is really congested.
In a workload without any write, it can cause direct page reclaim sleep 100ms
and hasn't any help for page reclaim.
There might be other places calling congestion_wait() and need check if
device is really congested, but I can't audit all, so this just changes the
direct page reclaim code path. The new congestion_wait_check() will make sure
at least one device is congested before going into sleep.
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
---
include/linux/backing-dev.h | 1 +
mm/backing-dev.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index: linux/mm/backing-dev.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/mm/backing-dev.c 2010-08-18 16:41:04.000000000 +0800
+++ linux/mm/backing-dev.c 2010-08-19 08:59:14.000000000 +0800
@@ -725,13 +725,16 @@ static wait_queue_head_t congestion_wqh[
__WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INITIALIZER(congestion_wqh[1])
};
+static atomic_t nr_congested_bdi[2];
+
void clear_bdi_congested(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, int sync)
{
enum bdi_state bit;
wait_queue_head_t *wqh = &congestion_wqh[sync];
bit = sync ? BDI_sync_congested : BDI_async_congested;
- clear_bit(bit, &bdi->state);
+ if (test_and_clear_bit(bit, &bdi->state))
+ atomic_dec(&nr_congested_bdi[sync]);
smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
if (waitqueue_active(wqh))
wake_up(wqh);
@@ -743,7 +746,8 @@ void set_bdi_congested(struct backing_de
enum bdi_state bit;
bit = sync ? BDI_sync_congested : BDI_async_congested;
- set_bit(bit, &bdi->state);
+ if (!test_and_set_bit(bit, &bdi->state))
+ atomic_inc(&nr_congested_bdi[sync]);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_bdi_congested);
@@ -769,3 +773,9 @@ long congestion_wait(int sync, long time
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(congestion_wait);
+long congestion_wait_check(int sync, long timeout)
+{
+ if (atomic_read(&nr_congested_bdi[sync]) == 0)
+ return 0;
+ return congestion_wait(sync, timeout);
+}
Index: linux/include/linux/backing-dev.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/include/linux/backing-dev.h 2010-08-18 16:41:04.000000000 +0800
+++ linux/include/linux/backing-dev.h 2010-08-18 16:41:23.000000000 +0800
@@ -285,6 +285,7 @@ enum {
void clear_bdi_congested(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, int sync);
void set_bdi_congested(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, int sync);
long congestion_wait(int sync, long timeout);
+long congestion_wait_check(int sync, long timeout);
static inline bool bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
Index: linux/mm/vmscan.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/mm/vmscan.c 2010-08-18 16:41:04.000000000 +0800
+++ linux/mm/vmscan.c 2010-08-18 16:41:23.000000000 +0800
@@ -1910,7 +1910,7 @@ static unsigned long do_try_to_free_page
/* Take a nap, wait for some writeback to complete */
if (!sc->hibernation_mode && sc->nr_scanned &&
priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
- congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
+ congestion_wait_check(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
}
out:
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists