linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Avoid useless inodes and dentries reclamation

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]

Date:	Thu, 29 Aug 2013 00:19:02 +0300
From:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid useless inodes and dentries reclamation

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 02:52:12PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> This patch detects that when free inodes and dentries are really
> low, their reclamation is skipped so we do not have to contend
> on the global sb_lock uselessly under memory pressure. Otherwise
> we create a log jam trying to acquire the sb_lock in prune_super(),
> with little or no freed memory to show for the effort.
> 
> The profile below shows a multi-threaded large file read exerting
> pressure on memory with page cache usage.  It is dominated
> by the sb_lock contention in the cpu cycles profile.  The patch
> eliminates the sb_lock contention almost entirely for prune_super().
> 
>     43.94%           usemem  [kernel.kallsyms]             [k] _raw_spin_lock
>                      |
>                      --- _raw_spin_lock
>                         |
>                         |--32.44%-- grab_super_passive
>                         |          prune_super
>                         |          shrink_slab
>                         |          do_try_to_free_pages
>                         |          try_to_free_pages
>                         |          __alloc_pages_nodemask
>                         |          alloc_pages_current
>                         |
>                         |--32.18%-- put_super
>                         |          drop_super
>                         |          prune_super
>                         |          shrink_slab
>                         |          do_try_to_free_pages
>                         |          try_to_free_pages
>                         |          __alloc_pages_nodemask
>                         |          alloc_pages_current
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  fs/super.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> index 68307c0..70fa26c 100644
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ static char *sb_writers_name[SB_FREEZE_LEVELS] = {
>   * shrinker path and that leads to deadlock on the shrinker_rwsem. Hence we
>   * take a passive reference to the superblock to avoid this from occurring.
>   */
> +#define SB_CACHE_LOW 5
>  static int prune_super(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
>  {
>  	struct super_block *sb;
> @@ -68,6 +69,13 @@ static int prune_super(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
>  	if (sc->nr_to_scan && !(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
>  		return -1;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Don't prune if we have few cached objects to reclaim to
> +	 * avoid useless sb_lock contention
> +	 */
> +	if ((sb->s_nr_dentry_unused + sb->s_nr_inodes_unused) <= SB_CACHE_LOW)
> +		return -1;

I don't think it's correct: you don't account fs_objects here and
prune_icache_sb() calls invalidate_mapping_pages() which can free a lot of
memory. It's too naive approach. You can miss a memory hog easily this
way.

> +
>  	if (!grab_super_passive(sb))
>  		return -1;
>  

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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/