linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 07/25] memcg: Reclaim when more than one page needed.

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:	Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:13:53 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC:	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Cristoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/25] memcg: Reclaim when more than one page needed.


>>>> +
>>>>   	ret = mem_cgroup_reclaim(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask, flags);
>>>>   	if (mem_cgroup_margin(mem_over_limit) >= nr_pages)
>>>>   		return CHARGE_RETRY;
>>>> @@ -2234,8 +2235,10 @@ static int mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>>>>   	 * unlikely to succeed so close to the limit, and we fall back
>>>>   	 * to regular pages anyway in case of failure.
>>>>   	 */
>>>> -	if (nr_pages == 1 && ret)
>>>> +	if (nr_pages <= (1 << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) && ret) {
>>>> +		cond_resched();
>>>>   		return CHARGE_RETRY;
>>>> +	}
>>>
>>> What prevents us from looping for unbounded amount of time here?
>>> Maybe you need to consider the number of reclaimed pages here.
>>
>> Why would we even loop here? It will just return CHARGE_RETRY, it is
>> up to the caller to decide whether or not it will retry.
>
> Yes, but the test was original to prevent oom when we managed to reclaim
> something. And something might be enough for a single page but now you
> have high order allocations so we can retry without any success.
>

So,

Most of the kmem allocations are likely to be quite small as well. For 
the slab, we're dealing with the order of 2-3 pages, and for other 
allocations that may happen, like stack, they will be in the order of 2 
pages as well.

So one thing I could do here, is define a threshold, say, 3, and only 
retry for that very low threshold, instead of following COSTLY_ORDER.
I don't expect two or three pages to be much less likely to be freed 
than a single page.

I am fine with ripping of the cond_resched as well.

Let me know if you would be okay with 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/