linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150930151855.GQ3068@techsingularity.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:18:56 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:	Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	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 30, 2015 at 04:43:00PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>Does a better job regarding what exactly? It does fix the CMA-specific
> >>issue, but so does this patch - without affecting allocation fastpaths by
> >>making them update another counter. But the issues discussed here are not
> >>related to that CMA problem.
> >
> >Let me disagree. Guaranteeing one suitable high-order page is not
> >enough, so the suggested patch does not work that well for me.
> >Existing broken watermark calculation doesn't work for me either, as
> >opposed to the one with my patch applied. Both solutions are related
> >to the CMA issue but one does make compaction work harder and cause
> >bigger latencies -- why do you think these are not related?
> 
> Well you didn't mention which issues you have with this patch. If you did
> measure bigger latencies and more compaction work, please post the numbers
> and details about the test.
> 

And very broadly watch out for decisions that force more reclaim/compaction
to potentially reduce latency in the future. It's trading definite overhead
now combined with potential reclaim of hot pages to reduce a *possible*
high-order allocation request in the future. It's why I think a series that
keeps more high-order pages free to reduce future high-order allocation
latency needs to be treated with care.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/