linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160607141248.GD9978@cmpxchg.org>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:12:48 -0400
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:34:43PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
> > balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat
> > vague
> > notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That
> > concept of value is problematic, because it has caused us to count
> > any
> > event that remotely makes one LRU list more or less preferrable for
> > reclaim, even when these events are not directly comparable to each
> > other and impose very different costs on the system - such as a
> > referenced file page that we still deactivate and a referenced
> > anonymous page that we actually rotate back to the head of the list.
> > 
> 
> Well, patches 7-10 answered my question on patch 6 :)
> 
> I like this design.

Great! Thanks for reviewing.