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  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, 16 Jun 2014 18:42:41 +0800
From:	Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>
To:	Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	<aquini@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] mm: add page cache limit and reclaim feature

On 2014/6/16 18:04, Zhang Yanfei wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 06/16/2014 05:24 PM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> When system(e.g. smart phone) running for a long time, the cache often takes
>> a large memory, maybe the free memory is less than 50M, then OOM will happen
>> if APP allocate a large order pages suddenly and memory reclaim too slowly. 
> 
> If there is really too many page caches, and the free memory is low. I think
> the page allocator will enter the slowpath to free more memory for allocation.
> And it the slowpath, there is indeed the direct reclaim operation, so is that
> really not enough to reclaim pagecaches?
> 

Hi Yanfei,

Do you mean this path?
__alloc_pages_slowpath()
	__alloc_pages_direct_reclaim()
		__perform_reclaim()
			try_to_free_pages()
the "nr_to_reclaim = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX" is only 32 pages.

>>
>> Use "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" will drop the whole cache, this will
>> affect the performance, so it is used for debugging only. 
>>
>> suse has this feature, I tested it before, but it can not limit the page cache
>> actually. So I rewrite the feature and add some parameters.
>>
>> Christoph Lameter has written a patch "Limit the size of the pagecache"
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=116959990228182&w=2
>> It changes in zone fallback, this is not a good way.
>>
>> The patchset is based on v3.15, it introduces two features, page cache limit
>> and page cache reclaim in circles.
>>
>> Add four parameters in /proc/sys/vm
>>
>> 1) cache_limit_mbytes
>> This is used to limit page cache amount.
>> The input unit is MB, value range is from 0 to totalram_pages.
>> If this is set to 0, it will not limit page cache.
>> When written to the file, cache_limit_ratio will be updated too.
>> The default value is 0.
>>
>> 2) cache_limit_ratio
>> This is used to limit page cache amount.
>> The input unit is percent, value range is from 0 to 100.
>> If this is set to 0, it will not limit page cache.
>> When written to the file, cache_limit_mbytes will be updated too.
>> The default value is 0.
>>
>> 3) cache_reclaim_s
>> This is used to reclaim page cache in circles.
>> The input unit is second, the minimum value is 0.
>> If this is set to 0, it will disable the feature.
>> The default value is 0.
>>
>> 4) cache_reclaim_weight
>> This is used to speed up page cache reclaim.
>> It depend on enabling cache_limit_mbytes/cache_limit_ratio or cache_reclaim_s.
>> Value range is from 1(slow) to 100(fast).
>> The default value is 1.
>>
>> I tested the two features on my system(x86_64), it seems to work right.
>> However, as it changes the hot path "add_to_page_cache_lru()", I don't know
>> how much it will the affect the performance,
> 
> Yeah, at a quick glance, for every invoke of add_to_page_cache_lru(), there is the 
> newly added test:
> 
> if (vm_cache_limit_mbytes && page_cache_over_limit())
> 
> and if the test is passed, shrink_page_cache()->do_try_to_free_pages() is called.
> And this is a sync operation. IMO, it is better to make such an operation async.
> (You've implemented async operation but I doubt if it is suitable to put the sync operation
> here.)
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Sounds to a good idea, how about waking up kswapd()?

Thanks,
Xishi Qiu

>  maybe there are some errors
>> in the patches too, RFC.
>>
>>
>> *** BLURB HERE ***
>>
>> Xishi Qiu (8):
>>   mm: introduce cache_limit_ratio and cache_limit_mbytes
>>   mm: add shrink page cache core
>>   mm: implement page cache limit feature
>>   mm: introduce cache_reclaim_s
>>   mm: implement page cache reclaim in circles
>>   mm: introduce cache_reclaim_weight
>>   mm: implement page cache reclaim speed
>>   doc: update Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
>>
>>  Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt |   43 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  include/linux/swap.h        |   17 ++++++++
>>  kernel/sysctl.c             |   35 +++++++++++++++
>>  mm/filemap.c                |    3 +
>>  mm/hugetlb.c                |    3 +
>>  mm/page_alloc.c             |   51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  mm/vmscan.c                 |   97 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  7 files changed, 248 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>> .
>>
> 
> 



--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists