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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:29:44 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk> Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 31/35] fs: icache per-zone inode LRU > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:14:32PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:42:47PM +1100, npiggin@...nel.dk wrote: > > > Anyway, my main point is that tying the LRU and shrinker scaling to > > > the implementation of the VM is a one-off solution that doesn't work > > > for generic infrastructure. Other subsystems need the same > > > large-machine scaling treatment, and there's no way we should be > > > tying them all into the struct zone. It needs further abstraction. > > > > I'm not sure what data structure is best. I can only say current > > zone unawareness slab shrinker might makes following sad scenario. > > > > o DMA zone shortage invoke and plenty icache in NORMAL zone dropping > > o NUMA aware system enable zone_reclaim_mode, but shrink_slab() still > > drop unrelated zone's icache > > > > both makes performance degression. In other words, Linux does not have > > flat memory model. so, I don't think Nick's basic concept is wrong. > > It's straight forward enhancement. but if it don't fit current shrinkers, > > I'd like to discuss how to make better data structure. > > > > > > > > and I have dump question (sorry, I don't know xfs at all). current > > xfs_mount is below. > > > > typedef struct xfs_mount { > > ... > > struct shrinker m_inode_shrink; /* inode reclaim shrinker */ > > } xfs_mount_t; > > > > > > Do you mean xfs can't convert shrinker to shrinker[ZONES]? If so, why? > > Well if XFS were to use per-ZONE shrinkers, it would remain with a > single shrinker context per-sb like it has now, but it would divide > its object management into per-zone structures. Oops, my fault ;) Yes, my intention is converting mp->m_perag_tree to per-zone. Thanks fix me. > > For subsystems that aren't important, don't take much memory or have > much reclaim throughput, they are free to ignore the zone argument > and keep using the global input to the shrinker. > -- 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