linux-kernel - Re: [patch 4/5] mm: writeback: throttle __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: <CAEwNFnARzetfqZqjh_9-d+FOHtrCEwaSxgqBy_D+apxsNqzqkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:40:59 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 4/5] mm: writeback: throttle __GFP_WRITE on per-zone dirty limits

Hi Andi,

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> The global dirty limits are put in proportion to the respective zone's
>> amount of dirtyable memory and the allocation denied when the limit of
>> that zone is reached.
>>
>> Before the allocation fails, the allocator slowpath has a stage before
>> compaction and reclaim, where the flusher threads are kicked and the
>> allocator ultimately has to wait for writeback if still none of the
>> zones has become eligible for allocation again in the meantime.
>>
>
> I don't really like this. It seems wrong to make memory
> placement depend on dirtyness.
>
> Just try to explain it to some system administrator or tuner: her
> head will explode and for good reasons.
>
> On the other hand I like doing round-robin in filemap by default
> (I think that is what your patch essentially does)
> We should have made  this default long ago. It avoids most of the
> "IO fills up local node" problems people run into all the time.
>
> So I would rather just change the default in filemap allocation.
>
> That's also easy to explain.

Just out of curiosity.
Why do you want to consider only filemap allocation, not IO(ie,
filemap + sys_[read/write]) allocation?

-- 
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/