| 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: <AANLkTi=KunDRwVd73vtbng0F+a=QBgJeV5BXrewYJa3R@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:24:35 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] deactive invalidated pages
Hi Mel,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:30:23PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Recently, there are reported problem about thrashing.
>> (http://marc.info/?l=rsync&m=128885034930933&w=2)
>> It happens by backup workloads(ex, nightly rsync).
>> That's because the workload makes just use-once pages
>> and touches pages twice. It promotes the page into
>> active list so that it results in working set page eviction.
>>
>> Some app developer want to support POSIX_FADV_NOREUSE.
>> But other OSes don't support it, either.
>> (http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=128928979512086&w=2)
>>
>> By Other approach, app developer uses POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED.
>> But it has a problem. If kernel meets page is writing
>> during invalidate_mapping_pages, it can't work.
>> It is very hard for application programmer to use it.
>> Because they always have to sync data before calling
>> fadivse(..POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED) to make sure the pages could
>> be discardable. At last, they can't use deferred write of kernel
>> so that they could see performance loss.
>> (http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/fadvise.html)
>>
>> In fact, invalidate is very big hint to reclaimer.
>> It means we don't use the page any more. So let's move
>> the writing page into inactive list's head.
>>
>> If it is real working set, it could have a enough time to
>> activate the page since we always try to keep many pages in
>> inactive list.
>>
>> I reuse lru_demote of Peter with some change.
>>
>> Reported-by: Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
>> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
>>
>> Ben, Remain thing is to modify rsync and use
>> fadvise(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED). Could you test it?
>> ---
>> include/linux/swap.h | 1 +
>> mm/swap.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> mm/truncate.c | 11 +++++---
>> 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
>> index eba53e7..a3c9248 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
>> @@ -213,6 +213,7 @@ extern void mark_page_accessed(struct page *);
>> extern void lru_add_drain(void);
>> extern int lru_add_drain_all(void);
>> extern void rotate_reclaimable_page(struct page *page);
>> +extern void lru_deactive_page(struct page *page);
>> extern void swap_setup(void);
>>
>> extern void add_page_to_unevictable_list(struct page *page);
>> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
>> index 3f48542..56fa298 100644
>> --- a/mm/swap.c
>> +++ b/mm/swap.c
>> @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ int page_cluster;
>>
>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pagevec[NR_LRU_LISTS], lru_add_pvecs);
>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pagevec, lru_rotate_pvecs);
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pagevec, lru_deactive_pvecs);
>> +
>>
>> /*
>> * This path almost never happens for VM activity - pages are normally
>> @@ -266,6 +268,45 @@ void add_page_to_unevictable_list(struct page *page)
>> spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
>> }
>>
>> +static void __pagevec_lru_deactive(struct pagevec *pvec)
>> +{
>
> Might be worth commenting that this function must be called with pre-emption
> disabled. FWIW, I am reasonably sure your implementation is prefectly safe
> but a note wouldn't hurt.
Will fix.
>
>> + int i, lru, file;
>> +
>> + struct zone *zone = NULL;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < pagevec_count(pvec); i++) {
>> + struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
>> + struct zone *pagezone = page_zone(page);
>> +
>> + if (pagezone != zone) {
>> + if (zone)
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
>> + zone = pagezone;
>> + spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (PageLRU(page)) {
>> + if (PageActive(page)) {
>> + file = page_is_file_cache(page);
>> + lru = page_lru_base_type(page);
>> + del_page_from_lru_list(zone, page,
>> + lru + LRU_ACTIVE);
>> + ClearPageActive(page);
>> + ClearPageReferenced(page);
>> + add_page_to_lru_list(zone, page, lru);
>> + __count_vm_event(PGDEACTIVATE);
>> +
>
> What about memcg, do we not need to be calling mem_cgroup_add_lru_list() here
> as well? I'm looking at the differences between what move_active_pages_to_lru()
Recently, add_page_to_lru_list contains mem_cgroup_add_lru_list.
> is doing and this. I'm wondering if it'd be worth your whole building a list
> of active pages that are to be moved to the inactive list and passing them
> to move_active_pages_to_lru() ? I confuess I have not thought about it deeply
> so it might be a terrible suggestion but it might reduce duplication of code.
Firstly I tried it so I sent a patch about making
move_to_active_pages_to_lru more generic.
move_to_active_pages_to_lru needs zone argument so I need gathering
pages per zone in truncate.
I don't want for user of the function to consider even zone and
zone->lru_lock handling.
I think the lru_demote_pages could be used elsewhere(ex, readahead max
size heuristic).
So it's generic and easy to use. :)
>
>> + update_page_reclaim_stat(zone, page, file, 0);
>> + }
>> + }
>> + }
>> + if (zone)
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
>> +
>> + release_pages(pvec->pages, pvec->nr, pvec->cold);
>> + pagevec_reinit(pvec);
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Drain pages out of the cpu's pagevecs.
>> * Either "cpu" is the current CPU, and preemption has already been
>> @@ -292,8 +333,28 @@ static void drain_cpu_pagevecs(int cpu)
>> pagevec_move_tail(pvec);
>> local_irq_restore(flags);
>> }
>> +
>> + pvec = &per_cpu(lru_deactive_pvecs, cpu);
>> + if (pagevec_count(pvec))
>> + __pagevec_lru_deactive(pvec);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Function used to forecefully demote a page to the head of the inactive
>> + * list.
>
> s/forecefully/forcefully/
>
> The comment should also state *why* and under what circumstances we move
> pages to the inactive list like this. Also based on the discussions
> elsewhere in this thread, it'd be nice to include a comment why it's the
> head of the inactive list and not the tail.
Fair enough.
Thanks for the comment, Mel.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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