linux-kernel - Re: boot warnings due to swap: make each swap partition have one address

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: <20130130095944.GA11457@kernel.org>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:59:44 +0800
From:	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Shaohua Li <shli@...ionio.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: boot warnings due to swap: make each swap partition have one
 address_space

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 01:40:40PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 06:16:05PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Subject: give-each-swapper-space-separate-backing_dev_info
> > > > 
> > > > The backing_dev_info can't be shared by all swapper address space.
> > > 
> > > Whyever not?  It's perfectly normal for different inodes/address_spaces
> > > to share a single backing_dev!  Sasha's trace says that it's wrong to
> > > initialize it MAX_SWAPFILES times: fair enough.  But why should I now
> > > want to spend 32kB (not even counting their __percpu counters) on all
> > > these pseudo-backing_devs?
> > 
> > That's correct, silly me. Updated it.
> 
> Looks much more to my taste, thank you!
> 
> > > 
> > > p.s. a grand little change would be to move page_cluster and swap_setup()
> > > from mm/swap.c to mm/swap_state.c: they have nothing to do with the other
> > > contents of swap.c, and everything to do with the contents of swap_state.c.
> > > Why swap.c is called swap.c is rather a mystery.
> > 
> > Tried, but looks page_cluster is used in sysctl, moving to swap_state.c will
> > make it optional. don't want to add another #ifdef, so give up.
> 
> Good point, thanks for trying, maybe I'll attack it next time it
> irritates me.
> 
> I don't yet know whether I approve of your changes or not, but running
> with them to see (and I'll send another bugfix separately in a moment).
> 
> I was the one who removed the swap_device_lock() which 2.4 used,
> because it almost always ended up having to take both swap_list_lock()
> and swap_device_lock(si).  You seem to have done a much better job of
> separating them usefully, but I need to convince myself that it does
> end up safely.
> 
> My reservations so far would be: how many installations actually have
> more than one swap area, so is it a good tradeoff to add more overhead
> to help those at the (slight) expense of everyone else?  The increasingly
> ugly page_mapping() worries me, and the static array of swapper_spaces
> annoys me a little.
> 
> I'm glad Minchan has now pointed you to Rik's posting of two years ago:
> I think there are more important changes to be made in that direction.

Not sure how others use multiple swaps, but current lock contention forces us
to use multiple swaps. I haven't carefully think about Rik's posting, but looks
it doesn't solve the lock contention problem.

Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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/