linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: vmscan: do not throttle based on pfmemalloc reserves if node has no reclaimable pages

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: <5549DEAC.6080709@suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 06 May 2015 11:28:12 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, anton@...bar.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: vmscan: do not throttle based on pfmemalloc reserves
 if node has no reclaimable pages

On 05/06/2015 12:09 AM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 03.04.2015 [10:45:56 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>>> What I find somewhat worrying though is that we could potentially
>>> break the pfmemalloc_watermark_ok() test in situations where
>>> zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) == 0 is a transient situation (and not
>>> a permanently allocated hugepage). In that case, the throttling is
>>> supposed to help system recover, and we might be breaking that
>>> ability with this patch, no?
>>
>> Well, if it's transient, we'll skip it this time through, and once there
>> are reclaimable pages, we should notice it again.
>>
>> I'm not familiar enough with this logic, so I'll read through the code
>> again soon to see if your concern is valid, as best I can.
>
> In reviewing the code, I think that transiently unreclaimable zones will
> lead to some higher direct reclaim rates and possible contention, but
> shouldn't cause any major harm. The likelihood of that situation, as
> well, in a non-reserved memory setup like the one I described, seems
> exceedingly low.

OK, I guess when a reasonably configured system has nothing to reclaim, 
it's already busted and throttling won't change much.

Consider the patch Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>

> 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/