linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slub: Avoid direct compaction if possible

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: <20130617142715.GB8853@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:27:15 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, penberg@...nel.org,
	mpm@...enic.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...e.de,
	glommer@...allels.com, hannes@...xchg.org, minchan@...nel.org,
	jiang.liu@...wei.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: Avoid direct compaction if possible

On Mon 17-06-13 16:34:23, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On 15.06.2013 00:26, David Rientjes wrote:
> >On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >
> >>>It's possible to avoid such problems (or at least to make them less probable)
> >>>by avoiding direct compaction. If it's not possible to allocate a contiguous
> >>>page without compaction, slub will fall back to order 0 page(s). In this case
> >>>kswapd will be woken to perform asynchronous compaction. So, slub can return
> >>>to default order allocations as soon as memory will be de-fragmented.
> >>
> >>Sounds like a good idea. Do you have some numbers to show the effect of
> >>this patch?
> >>
> >
> >I'm surprised you like this patch, it basically makes slub allocations to
> >be atomic and doesn't try memory compaction nor reclaim.  Asynchronous
> >compaction certainly isn't aggressive enough to mimick the effects of the
> >old lumpy reclaim that would have resulted in less fragmented memory.  If
> >slub is the only thing that is doing high-order allocations, it will start
> >falling back to the smallest page order much much more often.
> >
> >I agree that this doesn't seem like a slub issue at all but rather a page
> >allocator issue; if we have many simultaneous thp faults at the same time
> >and /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/defrag is "always" then you'll get
> >the same problem if deferred compaction isn't helping.
> >
> >So I don't think we should be patching slub in any special way here.
> >
> >Roman, are you using the latest kernel?  If so, what does
> >grep compact_ /proc/vmstat show after one or more of these events?
> >
> 
> We're using 3.4. And the problem reveals when we moved from 3.2 to 3.4.
> It can be also reproduced on 3.5.

FWIW, there were some compaction locking related patches merged
around 3.7. See 2a1402aa044b55c2d30ab0ed9405693ef06fb07c and follow ups.

> I'll send the exact numbers as soon I'll reproduce it again.
> It can take up to 1 week.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Regards,
> Roman
> 
> --
> 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>

-- 
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/