linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm, kswapd: replace kswapd compaction with waking up 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]

Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:59:08 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm, kswapd: replace kswapd compaction with waking
 up kcompactd

2016-03-02 23:40 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>:
> On 03/02/2016 03:22 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> 2016-03-02 23:09 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>:
>>> On 03/02/2016 02:57 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know.
>>>> What I'd like to say here is that you need to care current_is_kswapd() in
>>>> this patch. This patch unintentionally change the back ground compaction
>>>> thread
>>>> behaviour to restart compaction by every 64 trials because calling
>>>> curret_is_kswapd()
>>>
>>>> by kcompactd would return false and is treated as direct reclaim.
>>>
>>> Oh, you mean this path to reset the skip bits. I see. But if skip bits are
>>> already reset by kswapd when waking kcompactd, then effect of another (rare)
>>> reset in kcompactd itself will be minimal?
>>
>> If you care current_is_kswapd() in this patch properly (properly means change
>> like "current_is_kcompactd()), reset in kswapd would not
>> happen because, compact_blockskip_flush would not be set by kcompactd.
>>
>> In this case, patch 5 would have it's own meaning so cannot be folded.
>
> So I understand that patch 5 would be just about this?
>
> -       if (compaction_restarting(zone, cc->order) && !current_is_kcompactd())
> +       if (compaction_restarting(zone, cc->order))
>                 __reset_isolation_suitable(zone);

Yeah, you understand correctly. :)

> I'm more inclined to fold it in that case.

Patch would be just simple, but, I guess it would cause some difference
in test result. But, I'm okay for folding.

Thanks.