linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/4] mm, compaction: introduce kcompactd

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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507231353400.31024@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
cc:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] mm, compaction: introduce kcompactd

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Joonsoo Kim wrote:

> > The slub allocator does try to allocate its high-order memory with 
> > __GFP_WAIT before falling back to lower orders if possible.  I would think 
> > that this would be the greatest sign of on-demand memory compaction being 
> > a problem, especially since CONFIG_SLUB is the default, but I haven't seen 
> > such reports.
> 
> In fact, some of our product had trouble with slub's high order
> allocation 5 months ago. At that time, compaction didn't make high order
> page and compaction attempts are frequently deferred. It also causes many
> reclaim to make high order page so I suggested masking out __GFP_WAIT
> and adding __GFP_NO_KSWAPD when trying slub's high order allocation to
> reduce reclaim/compaction overhead. Although using high order page in slub
> has some gains that reducing internal fragmentation and reducing management
> overhead, benefit is marginal compared to the cost at making high order
> page. This solution improves system response time for our case. I planned
> to submit the patch but it is delayed due to my laziness. :)
> 

Hi Joonsoo,

On a fragmented machine I can certainly understand that the overhead 
involved in allocating the high-order page outweighs the benefit later and 
it's better to fallback more quickly to page orders if the cache allows 
it.

I believe that this would be improved by the suggestion of doing 
background synchronous compaction.  So regardless of whether __GFP_WAIT is 
set, if the allocation fails then we can kick off background compaction 
that will hopefully defragment memory for future callers.  That should 
make high-order atomic allocations more successful as well.
--
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/