linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether kswapd sleeps

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: <20160706083121.GL11498@techsingularity.net>
Date:	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:31:21 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether
 kswapd sleeps

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 09:30:54AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:26:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > > > @@ -3418,10 +3426,10 @@ void wakeup_kswapd(struct zone *zone, int order, enum zone_type classzone_idx)
> > > >  	if (!cpuset_zone_allowed(zone, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_HARDWALL))
> > > >  		return;
> > > >  	pgdat = zone->zone_pgdat;
> > > > -	if (pgdat->kswapd_max_order < order) {
> > > > -		pgdat->kswapd_max_order = order;
> > > > -		pgdat->classzone_idx = min(pgdat->classzone_idx, classzone_idx);
> > > > -	}
> > > > +	if (pgdat->kswapd_classzone_idx == -1)
> > > > +		pgdat->kswapd_classzone_idx = classzone_idx;
> > > 
> > > It's tricky. Couldn't we change kswapd_classzone_idx to integer type
> > > and remove if above if condition?
> > > 
> > 
> > It's tricky and not necessarily better overall. It's perfectly possible
> > to be woken up for zone index 0 so it's changing -1 to another magic
> > value.
> 
> I don't get it. What is a problem with this?
> 

It becomes difficult to tell the difference between "no wakeup and init to
zone 0" and "wakeup and reclaim for zone 0". At least that's the problem
I ran into when I tried before settling on -1.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs