linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: vmscan: shrink all slab objects if tight on memory

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: <52D64B27.30604@parallels.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:47:35 +0400
From:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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 1/5] mm: vmscan: shrink all slab objects if tight on memory

On 01/15/2014 02:14 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:23:30 +0400 Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/14/2014 03:05 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> That being said, I think I'll schedule this patch as-is for 3.14.  Can
>>> you please take a look at implementing the simpler approach, send me
>>> something for 3.15-rc1?
>> IMHO the simpler approach (Glauber's patch) is not suitable as is,
>> because it, in fact, neglects the notion of batch_size when doing low
>> prio scans, because it calls ->scan() for < batch_size objects even if
>> the slab has >= batch_size objects while AFAIU it should accumulate a
>> sufficient number of objects to scan in nr_deferred instead.
> Well.  If you mean that when nr-objects=large and batch_size=32 and
> total_scan=33, the patched code will scan 32 objects and then 1 object
> then yes, that should be fixed.

I mean if nr_objects=large and batch_size=32 and shrink_slab() is called
8 times with total_scan=4, we can either call ->scan() 8 times with
nr_to_scan=4 (Glauber's patch) or call it only once with nr_to_scan=32
(that's how it works now). Frankly, after a bit of thinking I am
starting to doubt that this can affect performance at all provided the
shrinker is implemented in a sane way, because as you've mentioned
shrink_slab() is already a slow path. It seems I misunderstood the
purpose of batch_size initially: I though we need it to limit the number
of calls to ->scan(), but now I guess the only purpose of it is limiting
the number of objects scanned in one pass to avoid latency issues. But
then another question arises - why do you think the behavior you
described above (scanning 32 and then 1 object if total_scan=33,
batch_size=32) is bad? In other words why can't we make the scan loop
look like this:

    while (total_scan > 0) {
        unsigned long ret;
        unsigned long nr_to_scan = min(total_scan, batch_size);

        shrinkctl->nr_to_scan = nr_to_scan;
        ret = shrinker->scan_objects(shrinker, shrinkctl);
        if (ret == SHRINK_STOP)
            break;
        freed += ret;

        count_vm_events(SLABS_SCANNED, nr_to_scan);
        total_scan -= nr_to_scan;

        cond_resched();
    }

?

Thanks.
--
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/