linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: exclude memory less nodes from zone

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: <20140219230558.GA28062@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:05:58 -0800
From:	Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: exclude memory less nodes from zone_reclaim

On 19.02.2014 [13:56:00 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> 
> > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > index 3e953f07edb0..4a44bdc7a8cf 100644
> > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > @@ -1855,7 +1855,7 @@ static void __paginginit init_zone_allows_reclaim(int nid)
> > >  {
> > >  	int i;
> > > 
> > > -	for_each_online_node(i)
> > > +	for_each_node_state(i, N_HIGH_MEMORY)
> > >  		if (node_distance(nid, i) <= RECLAIM_DISTANCE)
> > >  			node_set(i, NODE_DATA(nid)->reclaim_nodes);
> > >  		else
> > > @@ -4901,7 +4901,8 @@ void __paginginit free_area_init_node(int nid, unsigned long *zones_size,
> > > 
> > >  	pgdat->node_id = nid;
> > >  	pgdat->node_start_pfn = node_start_pfn;
> > > -	init_zone_allows_reclaim(nid);
> > > +	if (node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY))
> > > +		init_zone_allows_reclaim(nid);
> > 
> > I'm still new to this code, but isn't this saying that if a node has no
> > memory, then it shouldn't reclaim from any node? But, for a memoryless
> > node to ensure progress later if reclaim is necessary, it *must* reclaim
> > from other nodes? So wouldn't we want to set reclaim_nodes() in that
> > case to node_states[N_MEMORY]?
> > 
> 
> The only time when pgdat->reclaim_nodes or zone_reclaim_mode matters is 
> when iterating through a zonelist for page allocation and a memoryless 
> node should never appear in a zonelist for page allocation, so this is 
> just preventing setting zone_reclaim_mode unnecessarily because the only 
> nodes with > RECLAIM_DISTANCE to another node are memoryless.  So this 
> patch is fine as long as it gets s/N_HIGH_MEMORY/N_MEMORY/.

Ah yes, sorry, I've been looking at this code perhaps too much and going
a bit cross-eyed!

I wonder if we should also put some comments in? But

Acked-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks,
Nish

--
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/