linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: slub: Default slub_max

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: <20110512181831.GQ11579@random.random>
Date:	Thu, 12 May 2011 20:18:31 +0200
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
	Raghavendra D Prabhu <raghu.prabhu13@...il.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: slub: Default slub_max_order to 0

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 01:00:10PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> > order 1 should work better, because it's less likely we end up here
> > (which leaves RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM on and then see what happens
> > at the top of page_check_references())
> >
> >    else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> 
> Why is this DEF_PRIORITY - 2? Shouldnt it be DEF_PRIORITY? An accomodation
> for SLAB order 1 allocs?

That's to allow a few loops of the shrinker (i.e. not take down
everything in the way regardless of any aging information in pte/page
if there's no memory pressure). This "- 2" is independent of the
allocation order. If it was < DEF_PRIORITY it'd trigger lumpy already
at the second loop (in do_try_to_free_pages). So it'd make things
worse. Like it'd make things worse decreasing the
PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER define to 2 and keeping slub at 3.

> May I assume that the case of order 2 and 3 allocs in that case was not
> very well tested after the changes to introduce compaction since people
> were focusing on RHEL testing?

Not really, I had to eliminate lumpy before compaction was
developed. RHEL6 has zero lumpy code (not even at compile time) and
compaction enabled by default, so even if we enabled SLUB=y it should
work ok (not sure why James still crashes with patch 2 applied that
clears __GFP_WAIT, that crash likely has nothing to do with compaction
or lumpy as both are off with __GFP_WAIT not set).

Lumpy is also eliminated upstream now (but only at runtime when
COMPACTION=y), unless __GFP_REPEAT is set, in which case I think lumpy
will still work upstream too but few unfrequent things like increasing
nr_hugepages uses that.
--
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/