linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm,vmscan: Use accurate values for zone

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:	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:52:48 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
	kwalker@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
	vdavydov@...allels.com, skozina@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,vmscan: Use accurate values for zone_reclaimable()
 checks

Hello, Michal.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:16:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Seriously, nobody goes full-on RUNNING.
> 
> Looping with cond_resched seems like general pattern in the kernel when
> there is no clear source to wait for. We have io_schedule when we know
> we should wait for IO (in case of congestion) but this is not necessarily
> the case - as you can see here. What should we wait for? A short nap
> without actually waiting on anything sounds like a dirty workaround to
> me.

It's one thing to do cond_resched() in long loops to avoid long
priority inversions and another to indefinitely loop without making
any difference.

> > > guarantee that then I would argue that it should be implicit for
> > > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM otherwise we always risk a similar situation. What would
> > > be a counter argument for doing that?
> > 
> > Not serving any actual purpose and degrading execution behavior.
> 
> I dunno, I am not familiar with WQ internals to see the risks but to me
> it sounds like WQ_MEM_RECLAIM gives an incorrect impression of safety
> wrt. memory pressure and as demonstrated it doesn't do that. Even if you

It generally does.  This is an extremely rare corner case where
infinite loop w/o forward progress is introduce w/o the user being
outright buggy.

> consider cond_resched behavior of the page allocator as bug we should be
> able to handle this gracefully.

We can argue this back and forth forever but we'll either need to
special case it (be it short sleep or a special flag) or implement a
rather complex detection logic which will likely involve some level of
complexity and is dubious in its practical usefulness.  It's a
trade-off and given the circumstances adding short sleep looks like a
reasonable one to me.  If this is more common, we definitely wanna go
for automatic detection.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/