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]
Date:	Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:51:15 +0200
From:	Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>:
>> > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always
>> > make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim).
>> > These assume that order-0 allocations are all that is necessary for
>> > forward progress.
>> >
>> > High-order watermarks serve a different purpose. Kswapd had no high-order
>> > awareness before they were introduced (https://lkml.org/lkml/2004/9/5/9).
>> > This was particularly important when there were high-order atomic requests.
>> > The watermarks both gave kswapd awareness and made a reserve for those
>> > atomic requests.
>> >
>> > There are two important side-effects of this. The most important is that
>> > a non-atomic high-order request can fail even though free pages are available
>> > and the order-0 watermarks are ok. The second is that high-order watermark
>> > checks are expensive as the free list counts up to the requested order must
>> > be examined.
>> >
>> > With the introduction of MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC it is no longer necessary to
>> > have high-order watermarks. Kswapd and compaction still need high-order
>> > awareness which is handled by checking that at least one suitable high-order
>> > page is free.
>>
>> I still don't think that this one suitable high-order page is enough.
>> If fragmentation happens, there would be no order-2 freepage. If kswapd
>> prepares only 1 order-2 freepage, one of two successive process forks
>> (AFAIK, fork in x86 and ARM require order 2 page) must go to direct reclaim
>> to make order-2 freepage. Kswapd cannot make order-2 freepage in that
>> short time. It causes latency to many high-order freepage requestor
>> in fragmented situation.
>>
>
> So what do you suggest instead? A fixed number, some other heuristic?
> You have pushed several times now for the series to focus on the latency
> of standard high-order allocations but again I will say that it is outside
> the scope of this series. If you want to take steps to reduce the latency
> of ordinary high-order allocation requests that can sleep then it should
> be a separate series.

I do believe https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/9/313 does a better job
here. I have to admit the patch header is a bit misleading here since
we don't actually exclude CMA pages, we just _fix_ the calculation in
the loop which is utterly wrong otherwise.

~vitaly
--
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