| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130409055514.GC6836@blaptop>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:55:14 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm, vmscan: count accidental reclaimed pages failed
to put into lru
Hello Joonsoo,
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:21:16AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> In shrink_(in)active_list(), we can fail to put into lru, and these pages
> are reclaimed accidentally. Currently, these pages are not counted
> for sc->nr_reclaimed, but with this information, we can stop to reclaim
> earlier, so can reduce overhead of reclaim.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Nice catch!
But this patch handles very corner case and makes reclaim function's name
rather stupid so I'd like to see text size change after we apply this patch.
Other nipicks below.
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> index 0f615eb..5d60ae0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ void *alloc_pages_exact_nid(int nid, size_t size, gfp_t gfp_mask);
> extern void __free_pages(struct page *page, unsigned int order);
> extern void free_pages(unsigned long addr, unsigned int order);
> extern void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, int cold);
> -extern void free_hot_cold_page_list(struct list_head *list, int cold);
> +extern unsigned long free_hot_cold_page_list(struct list_head *list, int cold);
>
> extern void __free_memcg_kmem_pages(struct page *page, unsigned int order);
> extern void free_memcg_kmem_pages(unsigned long addr, unsigned int order);
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 8fcced7..a5f3952 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1360,14 +1360,18 @@ out:
> /*
> * Free a list of 0-order pages
> */
> -void free_hot_cold_page_list(struct list_head *list, int cold)
> +unsigned long free_hot_cold_page_list(struct list_head *list, int cold)
> {
> + unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
How about nr_free or nr_freed for consistent with function title?
> struct page *page, *next;
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(page, next, list, lru) {
> trace_mm_page_free_batched(page, cold);
> free_hot_cold_page(page, cold);
> + nr_reclaimed++;
> }
> +
> + return nr_reclaimed;
> }
>
> /*
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 88c5fed..eff2927 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -915,7 +915,6 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
> */
> __clear_page_locked(page);
> free_it:
> - nr_reclaimed++;
>
> /*
> * Is there need to periodically free_page_list? It would
> @@ -954,7 +953,7 @@ keep:
> if (nr_dirty && nr_dirty == nr_congested && global_reclaim(sc))
> zone_set_flag(zone, ZONE_CONGESTED);
>
> - free_hot_cold_page_list(&free_pages, 1);
> + nr_reclaimed += free_hot_cold_page_list(&free_pages, 1);
Nice cleanup.
>
> list_splice(&ret_pages, page_list);
> count_vm_events(PGACTIVATE, pgactivate);
> @@ -1321,7 +1320,7 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> if (nr_taken == 0)
> return 0;
>
> - nr_reclaimed = shrink_page_list(&page_list, zone, sc, TTU_UNMAP,
> + nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&page_list, zone, sc, TTU_UNMAP,
> &nr_dirty, &nr_writeback, false);
Do you have any reason to change?
To me, '=' is more clear to initialize the variable.
When I see above, I have to look through above lines to catch where code
used the nr_reclaimed.
>
> spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> @@ -1343,7 +1342,7 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
>
> spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
>
> - free_hot_cold_page_list(&page_list, 1);
> + nr_reclaimed += free_hot_cold_page_list(&page_list, 1);
How about considering vmstat, too?
It could be minor but you are considering freed page as
reclaim context. (ie, sc->nr_reclaimed) so it would be more appropriate.
>
> /*
> * If reclaim is isolating dirty pages under writeback, it implies
> @@ -1438,7 +1437,7 @@ static void move_active_pages_to_lru(struct lruvec *lruvec,
> __count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, pgmoved);
> }
>
> -static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> +static unsigned long shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> struct lruvec *lruvec,
> struct scan_control *sc,
> enum lru_list lru)
> @@ -1534,7 +1533,7 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_ANON + file, -nr_taken);
> spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
>
> - free_hot_cold_page_list(&l_hold, 1);
> + return free_hot_cold_page_list(&l_hold, 1);
It would be better to add comment about return value.
Otherwise, people could confuse with the number of pages moved from
active to inactive.
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SWAP
> @@ -1617,7 +1616,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_list(enum lru_list lru, unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> {
> if (is_active_lru(lru)) {
> if (inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, lru))
> - shrink_active_list(nr_to_scan, lruvec, sc, lru);
> + return shrink_active_list(nr_to_scan, lruvec, sc, lru);
> +
Unnecessary change.
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1861,8 +1861,8 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
> * rebalance the anon lru active/inactive ratio.
> */
> if (inactive_anon_is_low(lruvec))
> - shrink_active_list(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, lruvec,
> - sc, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON);
> + sc->nr_reclaimed += shrink_active_list(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,
> + lruvec, sc, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON);
>
> throttle_vm_writeout(sc->gfp_mask);
> }
> @@ -2470,23 +2470,27 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> }
> #endif
>
> -static void age_active_anon(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
Comment about return value.
or rename but I have no idea. Sorry.
> +static unsigned long age_active_anon(struct zone *zone,
> + struct scan_control *sc)
> {
> + unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>
> if (!total_swap_pages)
> - return;
> + return 0;
>
> memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, NULL, NULL);
> do {
> struct lruvec *lruvec = mem_cgroup_zone_lruvec(zone, memcg);
>
> if (inactive_anon_is_low(lruvec))
> - shrink_active_list(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, lruvec,
> - sc, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON);
> + nr_reclaimed += shrink_active_list(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,
> + lruvec, sc, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON);
>
> memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL);
> } while (memcg);
> +
> + return nr_reclaimed;
> }
>
> static bool zone_balanced(struct zone *zone, int order,
> @@ -2666,7 +2670,7 @@ loop_again:
> * Do some background aging of the anon list, to give
> * pages a chance to be referenced before reclaiming.
> */
> - age_active_anon(zone, &sc);
> + sc.nr_reclaimed += age_active_anon(zone, &sc);
>
> /*
> * If the number of buffer_heads in the machine
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> --
> 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>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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