linux-kernel - Re: RFC: Easy-Reclaimable LRU list

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:	Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:07:11 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: RFC:  Easy-Reclaimable LRU list

On 06/26/2012 04:12 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 05:46 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> On 06/19/2012 09:49 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> Hi everybody!
>>>
>>> Recently, there are some efforts to handle system memory pressure.
>>>
>>> 1) low memory notification - [1]
>>> 2) fallocate(VOLATILE) - [2]
>>> 3) fadvise(NOREUSE) - [3]
>>>
>>> For them, I would like to add new LRU list, aka "Ereclaimable" which
>>> is opposite of "unevictable".
>>> Reclaimable LRU list includes_easy_  reclaimable pages.
>>> For example, easy reclaimable pages are following as.
>>>
>>> 1. invalidated but remained LRU list.
>>> 2. pageout pages for reclaim(PG_reclaim pages)
>>> 3. fadvise(NOREUSE)
>>> 4. fallocate(VOLATILE)
>>>
>>> Their pages shouldn't stir normal LRU list and compaction might not
>>> migrate them, even.
>> What about other things moving memory like CMA ?
>
>
> Sorry for not being able to understand your point.
> Can you elaborate a bit more?
>

Well, maybe I didn't =)
I was just wondering why exactly it is that troubles your scheme with 
compaction, and if such restriction would also apply to memory movement
schemes like CMA.


--
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/