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:	Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:40:58 +0800
From:	Jaegeuk Hanse <jaegeuk.hanse@...il.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kswapd endless loop for compaction

On 11/21/2012 03:04 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> while testing a 3.7-rc5ish kernel, I noticed that kswapd can drop into
> a busy spin state without doing reclaim.  printk-style debugging told
> me that this happens when the distance between a zone's high watermark
> and its low watermark is less than two huge pages (DMA zone).
>
> 1. The first loop in balance_pgdat() over the zones finds all zones to
> be above their high watermark and only does goto out (all_zones_ok).
>
> 2. pgdat_balanced() at the out: label also just checks the high
> watermark, so the node is considered balanced and the order is not
> reduced.
>
> 3. In the `if (order)' block after it, compaction_suitable() checks if
> the zone's low watermark + twice the huge page size is okay, which
> it's not necessarily in a small zone, and so COMPACT_SKIPPED makes it
> it go back to loop_again:.
>
> This will go on until somebody else allocates and breaches the high
> watermark and then hopefully goes on to reclaim the zone above low
> watermark + 2 * THP.
>
> I'm not really sure what the correct solution is.  Should we modify
> the zone_watermark_ok() checks in balance_pgdat() to take into account
> the higher watermark requirements for reclaim on behalf of compaction?
> Change the check in compaction_suitable() / not use it directly?
>

Hi Johannes,


- If all zones meet high watermark, goto out, then why go to `if 
(order)' block?

- If depend on compaction get enough contigous pages, why


if (CONPACT_BUILD && order &&

     compaction_suitable(zone, order) !=

         COMPACTION_SKIPPED)

     testorder = 0;


can't guarantee low watermark + twice the huge page size is okay?


Regards,

Jaegeuk

>
> Thanks,
> Johannes
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ