linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: set shrinker to the left page count

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]

Date:	Tue, 28 Jun 2016 18:37:24 +0800
From:	Chen Feng <puck.chen@...ilicon.com>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
CC:	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	<mhocko@...e.com>, <vbabka@...e.cz>, <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	<riel@...hat.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <labbott@...hat.com>,
	<suzhuangluan@...ilicon.com>, <oliver.fu@...ilicon.com>,
	<puck.chen@...mail.com>, <dan.zhao@...ilicon.com>,
	<saberlily.xia@...ilicon.com>, <xuyiping@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: set shrinker to the left page count

Thanks for you reply.

On 2016/6/28 0:57, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 07:02:15PM +0800, Chen Feng wrote:
>> In my platform, there can be cache a lot of memory in
>> ion page pool. When shrink memory the nr_to_scan to ion
>> is always to little.
>> to_scan: 395  ion_pool_cached: 27305
> 
> That's OK. We want to shrink slabs gradually, not all at once.
> 

OK， But my question there are a lot of memory waiting for free.
But the to_scan is too little.

So, the lowmemorykill may kill the wrong process.
>>
>> Currently, the shrinker nr_deferred is set to total_scan.
>> But it's not the real left of the shrinker.
> 
> And it shouldn't. The idea behind nr_deferred is following. A shrinker
> may return SHRINK_STOP if the current allocation context doesn't allow
> to reclaim its objects (e.g. reclaiming inodes under GFP_NOFS is
> deadlock prone). In this case we can't call the shrinker right now, but
> if we just forget about the batch we are supposed to reclaim at the
> current iteration, we can wind up having too many of these objects so
> that they start to exert unfairly high pressure on user memory. So we
> add the amount that we wanted to scan but couldn't to nr_deferred, so
> that we can catch up when we get to shrink_slab() with a proper context.
> 
I am confused with your comments. If the shrinker return STOP this time.
It also can return STOP next time.
Is there any other effects about this change？

Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks.
>> Change it to
>> the freeable - freed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen Feng <puck.chen@...ilicon.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/vmscan.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index c4a2f45..1ce3fc4 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -357,8 +357,8 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl,
>>  	 * manner that handles concurrent updates. If we exhausted the
>>  	 * scan, there is no need to do an update.
>>  	 */
>> -	if (total_scan > 0)
>> -		new_nr = atomic_long_add_return(total_scan,
>> +	if (freeable - freed > 0)
>> +		new_nr = atomic_long_add_return(freeable - freed,
>>  						&shrinker->nr_deferred[nid]);
>>  	else
>>  		new_nr = atomic_long_read(&shrinker->nr_deferred[nid]);
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
> 
>