linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm, numa: reclaim from all nodes within reclaim distance

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20120918140313.236f7a66.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:03:13 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, numa: reclaim from all nodes within reclaim
 distance

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:

> RECLAIM_DISTANCE represents the distance between nodes at which it is
> deemed too costly to allocate from; it's preferred to try to reclaim from
> a local zone before falling back to allocating on a remote node with such
> a distance.
> 
> To do this, zone_reclaim_mode is set if the distance between any two
> nodes on the system is greather than this distance.  This, however, ends
> up causing the page allocator to reclaim from every zone regardless of
> its affinity.
> 
> What we really want is to reclaim only from zones that are closer than 
> RECLAIM_DISTANCE.  This patch adds a nodemask to each node that
> represents the set of nodes that are within this distance.  During the
> zone iteration, if the bit for a zone's node is set for the local node,
> then reclaim is attempted; otherwise, the zone is skipped.

Is this a theoretical thing, or does the patch have real observable
effects?

This change makes it more important that the arch code implements
node_distance() accurately (wrt RECLAIM_DISTANCE), yes?  I wonder how
much code screwed that up, and what the effects of such a screwup would
be, and how arch maintainers would go about detecting then fixing such
an error?

--
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/