linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix pgalloc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160714085827.GA9480@bbox>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:58:27 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix pgalloc_stall on unpopulated zone

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 09:51:53AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:11:19AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > The patch means that the vmstat accounting and tracepoint data is also
> > > out of sync. One thing I wanted to be able to do was
> > > 
> > > 1. Observe that there are alloc stalls on DMA32 or some other low zone
> > > 2. Activate mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_begin, filter on classzone_idx ==
> > >    DMA32 and identify the source of the lowmem allocations
> > > 
> > > If your patch is applied, I cannot depend on the stall stats any more
> > > and the tracepoint is required to determine if there really any
> > > zone-contrained allocations. It can be *inferred* from the skip stats
> > > but only if such skips occurred and that is not guaranteed.
> > 
> > Just a nit:
> > 
> > Hmm, can't we omit classzone_idx in mm_vm_scan_direct_begin_template?
> > Because every functions already have gfp_flags so that we can classzone_idx
> > via gfp_zone(gfp_flags) without passing it.
> > 
> 
> We could but it's potentially wrong. classzone_idx *should* be derived
> from the gfp_flags but it's possible a bug would lead it to be another
> value. The saving from passing it in is marginal at best.
> 
> If it's omitted from the tracepoint itself, there is a small amount of
> disk saving which is potentially significant if there is a lot of direct
> reclaim. Unfortunately, it also makes it harder to filter that
> tracepoint because the filter rules must be an implementation of
> gfp_zone.
> 
> Right now I believe the saving is marginal and the cost of potentially
> using the wrong information or making the filtering harder offsets that
> marginal saving.

Agreed.

Thanks.