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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:33:29 +0200 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] mm: memcontrol: fix transparent huge page allocations under pressure [I do not have time to get over all points here and will be offline until Monday - will get back to the rest then] On Tue 07-10-14 21:11:06, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:59:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > I am completely missing any notes about potential excessive > > swapouts or longer reclaim stalls which are a natural side effect of direct > > reclaim with a larger target (or is this something we do not agree on?). > > Yes, we disagree here. Why is reclaiming 2MB once worse than entering > reclaim 16 times to reclaim SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX? You can enter DEF_PRIORITY reclaim 16 times and reclaim your target but you need at least 512<<DEF_PRIORITY pages on your LRUs to do it in a single run on that priority. So especially small groups will pay more and would be subject to mentioned problems (e.g. over-reclaim). > There is no inherent difference in reclaiming a big chunk and > reclaiming many small chunks that add up to the same size. [...] > > Another part that matters is the size. Memcgs might be really small and > > that changes the math. Large reclaim target will get to low prio reclaim > > and thus the excessive reclaim. > > I already addressed page size vs. memcg size before. > > However, low priority reclaim does not result in excessive reclaim. > The reclaim goal is checked every time it scanned SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX > pages, and it exits if the goal has been met. See shrink_lruvec(), > shrink_zone() etc. Now I am confused. shrink_zone will bail out but shrink_lruvec will loop over nr[...] until they are empty and only updates the numbers to be roughly proportional once: if (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim || scan_adjusted) continue; /* * For kswapd and memcg, reclaim at least the number of pages * requested. Ensure that the anon and file LRUs are scanned * proportionally what was requested by get_scan_count(). We * stop reclaiming one LRU and reduce the amount scanning * proportional to the original scan target. */ [...] scan_adjusted = true; Or do you rely on /* * It's just vindictive to attack the larger once the smaller * has gone to zero. And given the way we stop scanning the * smaller below, this makes sure that we only make one nudge * towards proportionality once we've got nr_to_reclaim. */ if (!nr_file || !nr_anon) break; and SCAN_FILE because !inactive_file_is_low? [...] -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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