linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 12/13] mm, compaction: more reliably increase 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]

Date:	Mon, 16 May 2016 10:14:39 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
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 12/13] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct
 compaction priority

On Mon 16-05-16 09:31:44, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 05/13/2016 04:15 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 10-05-16 09:36:02, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > 
> > > - should_compact_retry() is only called when should_reclaim_retry() returns
> > >    false. This means that compaction priority cannot get increased as long
> > >    as reclaim makes sufficient progress. Theoretically, reclaim should stop
> > >    retrying for high-order allocations as long as the high-order page doesn't
> > >    exist but due to races, this may result in spurious retries when the
> > >    high-order page momentarily does exist.
> > 
> > This is intentional behavior and I would like to preserve it if it is
> > possible. For higher order pages should_reclaim_retry retries as long
> > as there are some eligible high order pages present which are just hidden
> > by the watermark check. So this is mostly to get us over watermarks to
> > start carrying about fragmentation. If we race there then nothing really
> > terrible should happen and we should eventually converge to a terminal
> > state.
> > 
> > Does this make sense to you?
> 
> Yeah it should work, my only worry was that this may get subtly wrong (as
> experience shows us) and due to e.g. slightly different watermark checks
> and/or a corner-case zone such as ZONE_DMA, should_reclaim_retry() would
> keep returning true, even if reclaim couldn't/wouldn't help anything. Then
> compaction would be needlessly kept at ineffective priority.

watermark check for ZONE_DMA should always fail because it fails even
when is completely free to the lowmem reserves. I had a subtle bug in
the original code to check highzone_idx rather than classzone_idx but
that should the fix has been posted recently:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463051677-29418-2-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org

> Also my understanding of the initial compaction priorities is to lower the
> latency if fragmentation is just light and there's enough memory. Once we
> start struggling, I don't see much point in not switching to the full
> compaction priority quickly.

That is true but why to compact when there are high order pages and they
are just hidden by the watermark check.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs