| 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: <20130410054822.GE5872@lge.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:48:22 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
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, Minchan.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 02:55:14PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> 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.
Ah... Yes.
I can re-work it to add number to sc->nr_reclaimed directly for both cases,
shrink_active_list() and age_active_anon().
>
> >
> > 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?
Okay.
>
> > 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.
>
There is no reason, I will change it.
> >
> > 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.
I don't understand what you mean.
Please explain more what you have in mind :)
>
> >
> > /*
> > * 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.
>
In next spin, I will not change return type.
So above problem will be disappreared.
> > }
> >
> > #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.
>
Why?
> > 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.
This will be disappreared in next spin.
Thanks for detailed review.
>
> > +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, 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