linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: Stop reclaim/compaction earlier due to insufficient progress if !__GFP

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: <20110217142209.8736cca1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:22:09 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: Stop reclaim/compaction earlier due to
 insufficient progress if !__GFP_REPEAT

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:50:49 +0000
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:

> should_continue_reclaim() for reclaim/compaction allows scanning to continue
> even if pages are not being reclaimed until the full list is scanned. In
> terms of allocation success, this makes sense but potentially it introduces
> unwanted latency for high-order allocations such as transparent hugepages
> and network jumbo frames that would prefer to fail the allocation attempt
> and fallback to order-0 pages.  Worse, there is a potential that the full
> LRU scan will clear all the young bits, distort page aging information and
> potentially push pages into swap that would have otherwise remained resident.

afaict the patch affects order-0 allocations as well.  What are the
implications of this?

Also, what might be the downsides of this change, and did you test for
them?

> This patch will stop reclaim/compaction if no pages were reclaimed in the
> last SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages that were considered.

a) Why SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX?  Is (SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX+7) better or worse?

b) The sentence doesn't seem even vaguely accurate.  shrink_zone()
   will scan vastly more than SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages before calling
   should_continue_reclaim().  Confused.

c) The patch doesn't "stop reclaim/compaction" fully.  It stops it
   against one zone.  reclaim will then advance on to any other
   eligible zones.

--
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/