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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:57:56 +0200 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org Subject: Re: [patch v3 -mm 1/3] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code On Wed 29-05-13 15:05:38, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 27-05-13 19:13:08, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Nevertheless I have encountered an issue while testing the huge number > > of groups scenario. And the issue is not limitted to only to this > > scenario unfortunately. As memcg iterators use per node-zone-priority > > cache to prevent from over reclaim it might quite easily happen that > > the walk will not visit all groups and will terminate the loop either > > prematurely or skip some groups. An example could be the direct reclaim > > racing with kswapd. This might cause that the loop misses over limit > > groups so no pages are scanned and so we will fall back to all groups > > reclaim. > > And after some more testing and head scratching it turned out that > fallbacks to pass#2 I was seeing are caused by something else. It is > not race between iterators but rather reclaiming from zone DMA which > has troubles to scan anything despite there are pages on LRU and so we > fall back. I have to look into that more but what-ever the issue is it > shouldn't be related to the patch series. Think I know what is going on. get_scan_count sees relatively small amount of pages in the lists (around 2k). This means that get_scan_count will tell us to scan nothing for DEF_PRIORITY (as the DMA32 is usually ~16M) then the DEF_PRIORITY is basically no-op and we have to wait and fall down to a priority which actually let us scan something. Hmm, maybe ignoring soft reclaim for DMA zone would help to reduce one pointless loop over groups. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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