linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: make the threshold of enabling THP configurable

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: <20110621093640.GD9396@suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:36:40 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: make the threshold of enabling THP configurable

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 01:16:00AM +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> ??? 2011???06???21??? 00:59, Mel Gorman ??????:
> >On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:34:29AM +0800, Amerigo Wang wrote:
> >>Don't hard-code 512M as the threshold in kernel, make it configruable,
> >>and set 512M by default.
> >>
> >
> >I'm not seeing the gain here either. This is something that is going to
> >be set by distributions and probably never by users. If the default of
> >512 is incorrect, what should it be? Also, the Kconfig help message has
> >spelling errors.
> >
> 
> Sorry for spelling errors, I am not an English speaker.
> 
> Hard-coding is almost never a good thing in kernel, enforcing 512
> is not good either. Since the default is still 512, I don't think this
> will affect much users.
> 
> I do agree to improve the help message, like Dave mentioned in his reply,
> but I don't like enforcing a hard-coded number in kernel.
> 
> BTW, why do you think 512 is suitable for *all* users?
> 

Fragmentation avoidance benefits from tuning min_free_kbytes to a higher
value and minimising fragmentation-related problems is crucial if THP is
to allocate its necessary pages.

THP tunes min_free_kbytes automatically and this value is in part
related to the number of zones. At 512M on a single node machine, the
recommended min_free_kbytes is close to 10% of memory which is barely
tolerable as it is. At 256M, it's 17%, at 128M, it's 34% so tuning the
value lower has diminishing returns as the performance impact of giving
up such a high percentage of free memory is not going to be offset by
reduced TLB misses. Tuning it to a higher value might make some sense
if the higher min_free_kbytes was a problem but it would be much more
rational to tune it as a sysctl than making it a compile-time decision.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/