linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: vmscan: respect NUMA policy mask when shrinking slab on direct reclaim

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:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:11:32 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<devel@...nvz.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: vmscan: respect NUMA policy mask when shrinking
 slab on direct reclaim

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:36:33 +0400 Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com> wrote:

> When direct reclaim is executed by a process bound to a set of NUMA
> nodes, we should scan only those nodes when possible, but currently we
> will scan kmem from all online nodes even if the kmem shrinker is NUMA
> aware. That said, binding a process to a particular NUMA node won't
> prevent it from shrinking inode/dentry caches from other nodes, which is
> not good. Fix this.

Seems right.  I worry that reducing the amount of shrinking which
node-bound processes perform might affect workloads in unexpected ways.

I think I'll save this one for 3.15-rc1, OK?
--
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/