linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 11/13] mm, compaction: add the ultimate direct compaction priority

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]

Message-ID: <573973F7.7070202@suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 16 May 2016 09:17:11 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 11/13] mm, compaction: add the ultimate direct compaction
 priority

On 05/13/2016 03:38 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-05-16 09:36:01, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> During reclaim/compaction loop, it's desirable to get a final answer from
>> unsuccessful compaction so we can either fail the allocation or invoke the OOM
>> killer. However, heuristics such as deferred compaction or pageblock skip bits
>> can cause compaction to skip parts or whole zones and lead to premature OOM's,
>> failures or excessive reclaim/compaction retries.
>>
>> To remedy this, we introduce a new direct compaction priority called
>> COMPACT_PRIO_SYNC_FULL, which instructs direct compaction to:
>>
>> - ignore deferred compaction status for a zone
>> - ignore pageblock skip hints
>> - ignore cached scanner positions and scan the whole zone
>> - use MIGRATE_SYNC migration mode
>
> I do not think we can do MIGRATE_SYNC because fallback_migrate_page
> would trigger pageout and we are in the allocation path and so we
> could blow up the stack.

Ah, I thought it was just waiting for the writeout to complete, and you 
wanted to introduce another migrate mode to actually do the writeout. 
But looks like I misremembered.

>> The new priority should get eventually picked up by should_compact_retry() and
>> this should improve success rates for costly allocations using __GFP_RETRY,
>
> s@...FP_RETRY@...FP_REPEAT@

Ah thanks. Depending on the patch timing it might be __GFP_RETRY_HARD in 
the end, right :)

>> such as hugetlbfs allocations, and reduce some corner-case OOM's for non-costly
>> allocations.
>
> My testing has shown that even with the current implementation with
> deferring, skip hints and cached positions had (close to) 100% success
> rate even with close to OOM conditions.

Hmm, I thought you at one point said that ignoring skip hints was a 
large improvement, because the current resetting of them is just too fuzzy.

> I am wondering whether this strongest priority should be done only for
> !costly high order pages. But we probably want less special cases
> between costly and !costly orders.

Yeah, if somebody wants to retry hard, let him.

>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/compaction.h |  1 +
>>   mm/compaction.c            | 15 ++++++++++++---
>>   2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
> [...]
>> @@ -1631,7 +1639,8 @@ enum compact_result try_to_compact_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>>   								ac->nodemask) {
>>   		enum compact_result status;
>>
>> -		if (compaction_deferred(zone, order)) {
>> +		if (prio > COMPACT_PRIO_SYNC_FULL
>> +					&& compaction_deferred(zone, order)) {
>>   			rc = max_t(enum compact_result, COMPACT_DEFERRED, rc);
>>   			continue;
>>   		}
>
> Wouldn't it be better to pull the prio check into compaction_deferred
> directly? There are more callers and I am not really sure all of them
> would behave consistently.

I'll check, thanks.