linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional 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:	Tue, 27 May 2014 16:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Bob Liu <bob.liu@...cle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux-FSDevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim

On Wed, 28 May 2014, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 May 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:44:29PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >> >
> >> > [PATCH 4/3] fs/superblock: Avoid counting without __GFP_FS
> >> >
> >> > Don't waste time counting objects in super_cache_count() if no __GFP_FS:
> >> > super_cache_scan() would only back out with SHRINK_STOP in that case.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> >>
> >> While you might think that's a good thing, it's not.  The act of
> >> shrinking is kept separate from the accounting of how much shrinking
> >> needs to take place.  The amount of work the shrinker can't do due
> >> to the reclaim context is deferred until the shrinker is called in a
> >> context where it can do work (eg. kswapd)
> >>
> >> Hence not accounting for work that can't be done immediately will
> >> adversely impact the balance of the system under memory intensive
> >> filesystem workloads. In these worklaods, almost all allocations are
> >> done in the GFP_NOFS or GFP_NOIO contexts so not deferring the work
> >> will will effectively stop superblock cache reclaim entirely....
> >
> > Thanks for filling me in on that.  At first I misunderstood you,
> > and went off looking in the wrong direction.  Now I see what you're
> > referring to: the quantity that shrink_slab_node() accumulates in
> > and withdraws from shrinker->nr_deferred[nid].
> 
> Maybe shrinker could accumulate fraction nr_pages_scanned / lru_pages
> instead of exact amount of required work? Count of shrinkable objects
> might be calculated later, when shrinker is called from a suitable context
> and can actualy do something.

Good idea, probably a worthwhile optimization to think through further.
(Though experience says that Dave will explain how that can never work.)

Hugh
--
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/