linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm, vmscan: Do not account skipped pages as scanned

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: <20160725080456.GB1660@bbox>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:04:56 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm, vmscan: Do not account skipped pages as scanned

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 04:21:47PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Page reclaim determines whether a pgdat is unreclaimable by examining how
> many pages have been scanned since a page was freed and comparing that
> to the LRU sizes. Skipped pages are not considered reclaim candidates but
> contribute to scanned. This can prematurely mark a pgdat as unreclaimable
> and trigger an OOM kill.
> 
> While this does not fix an OOM kill message reported by Joonsoo Kim,
> it did stop pgdat being marked unreclaimable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 22aec2bcfeec..b16d578ce556 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1415,7 +1415,7 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>  	LIST_HEAD(pages_skipped);
>  
>  	for (scan = 0; scan < nr_to_scan && nr_taken < nr_to_scan &&
> -					!list_empty(src); scan++) {
> +					!list_empty(src);) {
>  		struct page *page;
>  
>  		page = lru_to_page(src);
> @@ -1429,6 +1429,9 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>  			continue;
>  		}
>  
> +		/* Pages skipped do not contribute to scan */
> +		scan++;
> +

As I mentioned in previous version, under irq-disabled-spin-lock, such
unbounded operation would make the latency spike worse if there are
lot of pages we should skip.

Don't we take care it?