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: <20150724053319.GA11135@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:33:19 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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, Jul 23, 2015 at 01:58:20PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> 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,

Hello David.

> 
> 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.

Yep! I also think __GFP_NO_KSWAPD isn't appropriate for general case.
Reason I suggested __GFP_NO_KSWAPD to our system is that reclaim/compaction
continually fails to make high order page so we don't want to invoke
reclaim/compaction even though it works in background. But, on almost of
other system, reclaim/compaction could succeed so adding __GFP_NO_KSWAPD
doens't make sense for general case.

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/