linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 25/29] memcg/sl[au]b: shrink dead caches

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: <0000013ae1050e6f-7f908e0b-720a-4e68-a275-e5086a4f5c74-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:15:36 +0000
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 25/29] memcg/sl[au]b: shrink dead caches

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:

> What's up with kmem_cache_shrink?  It's global and exported to modules
> but its only external caller is some weird and hopelessly poorly
> documented site down in drivers/acpi/osl.c.  slab and slob implement
> kmem_cache_shrink() *only* for acpi!  wtf?  Let's work out what acpi is
> trying to actually do there, then do it properly, then killkillkill!

kmem_cache_shrink is also used internally. Its simply releasing unused
cached objects.

> Secondly, as slab and slub (at least) have the ability to shed cached
> memory, why aren't they hooked into the core cache-shinking machinery.
> After all, it's called "shrink_slab"!

Because the core cache shrinking needs the slab caches to free up memory
from inodes and dentries. We could call kmem_cache_shrink at the end of
the shrink passes in vmscan. The price would be that the caches would have
to be repopulated when new allocations occur.
>
> If we can fix all that up then I wonder whether this particular patch
> needs to exist at all.  If the kmem_cache is no longer used then we
> can simply leave it floating around in memory and the regular cache
> shrinking code out of shrink_slab() will clean up any remaining pages.
> The kmem_cache itself can be reclaimed via another shrinker, if
> necessary?

The kmem_cache can only be released if all its objects (used and unused)
are released.  kmem_cache_shrink drops the unused objects on some internal
slab specific list. That may enable us to release the kmem_cache
structure.

--
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/