linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely

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]

Date:	Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:35:07 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely

> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:48:19 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:11:46 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely
> > > 
> > > zone.all_unreclaimable is there to prevent reclaim from wasting CPU
> > > cycles scanning a zone which has no reclaimable pages.  When originally
> > > implemented it did this very well.
> > >
> > > That you guys keep breaking it, or don't feel like improving it is not a
> > > reason to remove it!
> > > 
> > > If the code is unneeded and the kernel now reliably solves this problem
> > > by other means then this should have been fully explained in the
> > > changelog, but it was not even mentioned.
> > 
> > The changelog says, the logic was removed at 2008. three years ago.
> > even though it's unintentionally. and I and minchan tried to resurrect
> > the broken logic and resurrected a bug in the logic too. then, we
> > are discussed it should die or alive.
> > 
> > Which part is hard to understand for you?
> 
> The part which isn't there: how does the kernel now address the problem
> which that code fixed?

Ah, got it.
The history says the problem haven't occur for three years. thus I
meant

past: code exist, but broken and don't work for three years.
new:  code removed.

What's different? But last minchan's mail pointed out recent
drain_all_pages() stuff depend on a return value of try_to_free_pages.

thus, I've made new patch and sent it. please see 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/