linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, vmstat: Allow WQ concurrency to discover memory reclaim doesn't make any progress

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20151125141233.aa6dcb1a35527a363cb0776a@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:12:33 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Cristopher Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz <arekm@...en.pl>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, vmstat: Allow WQ concurrency to discover memory
 reclaim doesn't make any progress

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:07:05 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Tue 24-11-15 15:44:48, Andrew Morton wrote:
> [...]
> > > Even though we haven't seen bug reports in the past I would suggest
> > > backporting this to the stable trees. The issue is present since we have
> > > stopped useing congestion_wait in the retry loop because WQ concurrency
> > > is older as well as vmstat worqueue based refresh AFAICS.
> >
> > hm, I'm reluctant.  If the patch fixes something that real people are
> > really hurting from then yes.  But I suspect this is just one fly-swat
> > amongst many.
> 
> Arkadiusz was seeing reclaim issues [1] on 4.1 kernel. I didn't have
> time to look deeper in that report but vmstat counters seemed terribly
> outdated and the issue went away when this patch was used. The thing is
> that there were others in the bundle so it is not 100% clear whether the
> patch alone helped or it was just a part of the puzzle.
> 
> Anyway I think that the issue is not solely theoretical. WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
> is simply not working if the allocation path doesn't sleep currently and
> my understanding of what Tejun claims [2] is that that reimplementing WQ
> concurrency would be too intrusive and lacks sufficient justification
> because other kernel paths do sleep. This patch tries to reduce the
> sleep only to worker threads which should not cause any problems to
> regular tasks.
> 
> I am open to any other suggestions. I do not like artificial sleep as
> well but this sounds like the most practical way to go now.
> 
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201511102313.36685.arekm@maven.pl
> [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20151106001648.GA18183@mtj.duckdns.org

hmpf, OK, I stuck a cc:stable in there.  It looks like the current
changelog is sufficient to explain to Greg (and others) why we think
backporting is needed.

--
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/