linux-kernel - Re: WARNING: at mm/page-writeback.c:1990 __set_page_dirty

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: <4FCC37CE.3080203@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:21:34 -0400
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>,
	Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	kosaki.motohiro@...il.com
Subject: Re: WARNING: at mm/page-writeback.c:1990 __set_page_dirty_nobuffers+0x13a/0x170()

> In changelog, Bartlomiej said.
>
>      My particular test case (on a ARM EXYNOS4 device with 512 MiB, which means
>      131072 standard 4KiB pages in 'Normal' zone) is to:
>
>      - allocate 120000 pages for kernel's usage
>      - free every second page (60000 pages) of memory just allocated
>      - allocate and use 60000 pages from user space
>      - free remaining 60000 pages of kernel memory
>        (now we have fragmented memory occupied mostly by user space pages)
>      - try to allocate 100 order-9 (2048 KiB) pages for kernel's usage
>
>      The results:
>      - with compaction disabled I get 11 successful allocations
>      - with compaction enabled - 14 successful allocations
>      - with this patch I'm able to get all 100 successful allocations
>
> I think above workload is really really artificial and theoretical so I didn't like
> this patch but Mel seem to like it. :(
>
> Quote from Mel
> " Ok, that is indeed an adverse workload that the current system will not
> properly deal with. I think you are right to try fixing this but may need
> a different approach that takes the cost out of the allocation/free path
> and moves it the compaction path."
>
> We can correct this patch to work but at least need justification about it.
> Do we really need this patch for such artificial workload?
> what do you think?

I'm ok to resubmit. But please change the thread.

--
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/