linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] (CMA_AGGRESSIVE) Make CMA memory be more aggressive about allocation

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: <20141103080546.GB7052@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date:	Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:05:46 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To:	Hui Zhu <teawater@...il.com>
Cc:	Hui Zhu <zhuhui@...omi.com>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
	len.brown@...el.com, pavel@....cz, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mina86@...a86.com,
	aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, mgorman@...e.de,
	minchan@...nel.org, nasa4836@...il.com, ddstreet@...e.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
	rientjes@...gle.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	keescook@...omium.org, atomlin@...hat.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
	axboe@...com, Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com,
	k.khlebnikov@...sung.com, msalter@...hat.com, deller@....de,
	tangchen@...fujitsu.com, ben@...adent.org.uk,
	akinobu.mita@...il.com, lauraa@...eaurora.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
	sasha.levin@...cle.com, vdavydov@...allels.com,
	suleiman@...gle.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (CMA_AGGRESSIVE) Make CMA memory be more aggressive
 about allocation

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 03:28:38PM +0800, Hui Zhu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:35:47AM +0800, Hui Zhu wrote:
> >> In fallbacks of page_alloc.c, MIGRATE_CMA is the fallback of
> >> MIGRATE_MOVABLE.
> >> MIGRATE_MOVABLE will use MIGRATE_CMA when it doesn't have a page in
> >> order that Linux kernel want.
> >>
> >> If a system that has a lot of user space program is running, for
> >> instance, an Android board, most of memory is in MIGRATE_MOVABLE and
> >> allocated.  Before function __rmqueue_fallback get memory from
> >> MIGRATE_CMA, the oom_killer will kill a task to release memory when
> >> kernel want get MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE memory because fallbacks of
> >> MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE are MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE and MIGRATE_MOVABLE.
> >> This status is odd.  The MIGRATE_CMA has a lot free memory but Linux
> >> kernel kill some tasks to release memory.
> >>
> >> This patch series adds a new function CMA_AGGRESSIVE to make CMA memory
> >> be more aggressive about allocation.
> >> If function CMA_AGGRESSIVE is available, when Linux kernel call function
> >> __rmqueue try to get pages from MIGRATE_MOVABLE and conditions allow,
> >> MIGRATE_CMA will be allocated as MIGRATE_MOVABLE first.  If MIGRATE_CMA
> >> doesn't have enough pages for allocation, go back to allocate memory from
> >> MIGRATE_MOVABLE.
> >> Then the memory of MIGRATE_MOVABLE can be kept for MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE and
> >> MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE which doesn't have fallback MIGRATE_CMA.
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I did some work similar to this.
> > Please reference following links.
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/28/64
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/28/57
> 
> > I tested #1 approach and found the problem. Although free memory on
> > meminfo can move around low watermark, there is large fluctuation on free
> > memory, because too many pages are reclaimed when kswapd is invoked.
> > Reason for this behaviour is that successive allocated CMA pages are
> > on the LRU list in that order and kswapd reclaim them in same order.
> > These memory doesn't help watermark checking from kwapd, so too many
> > pages are reclaimed, I guess.
> 
> This issue can be handle with some change around shrink code.  I am
> trying to integrate  a patch for them.
> But I am not sure we met the same issue.  Do you mind give me more
> info about this part?

I forgot the issue because there is so big time-gap. I need sometime
to bring issue back to my brain. I will answer it soon after some thinking.

> 
> >
> > And, aggressive allocation should be postponed until freepage counting
> > bug is fixed, because aggressive allocation enlarge the possiblity
> > of problem occurence. I tried to fix that bug, too. See following link.
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/23/90
> 
> I am following these patches.  They are great!  Thanks for your work.

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/