| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <98b0c783-28dc-62c4-5a94-74c9e27bebe0@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 08:55:33 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
'Michal Hocko' <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: 'Andrew Morton' <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
'Arkadiusz Miskiewicz' <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>,
'Ralf-Peter Rohbeck' <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@...ntum.com>,
'Olaf Hering' <olaf@...fle.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, 'Mel Gorman' <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
'Joonsoo Kim' <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
'David Rientjes' <rientjes@...gle.com>,
'Rik van Riel' <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct
compaction priority
On 09/23/2016 06:04 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
>>
>> ----8<----
>> From a7921e57ba1189b9c08fc4879358a908c390e47c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:02:37 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to
>> should_reclaim_retry()
>>
>> The should_reclaim_retry() makes decisions based on no_progress_loops, so it
>> makes sense to also update the counter there. It will be also consistent with
>> should_compact_retry() and compaction_retries. No functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>> ---
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index 582820080601..a01359ab3ed6 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -3401,16 +3401,26 @@ bool gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>> static inline bool
>> should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
>> struct alloc_context *ac, int alloc_flags,
>> - bool did_some_progress, int no_progress_loops)
>> + bool did_some_progress, int *no_progress_loops)
>> {
>> struct zone *zone;
>> struct zoneref *z;
>>
>> /*
>> + * Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean
>> + * their order will become available due to high fragmentation so
>> + * always increment the no progress counter for them
>> + */
>> + if (did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
>> + no_progress_loops = 0;
>
> s/no/*no/
>> + else
>> + no_progress_loops++;
>
> s/no_progress_loops/(*no_progress_loops)/
Crap, thanks. I'm asking our gcc guy about possible warnings for this,
and some past mistake I've seen which would be *no_progress_loops++.
> With that feel free to add
> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
Thanks!
----8<----
>From 1623d5bd441160569ffad3808aeeec852048e558 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:02:37 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to
should_reclaim_retry()
The should_reclaim_retry() makes decisions based on no_progress_loops, so it
makes sense to also update the counter there. It will be also consistent with
should_compact_retry() and compaction_retries. No functional change.
[hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com: fix missing pointer dereferences]
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 582820080601..6039ff40452c 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3401,16 +3401,26 @@ bool gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask)
static inline bool
should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
struct alloc_context *ac, int alloc_flags,
- bool did_some_progress, int no_progress_loops)
+ bool did_some_progress, int *no_progress_loops)
{
struct zone *zone;
struct zoneref *z;
/*
+ * Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean
+ * their order will become available due to high fragmentation so
+ * always increment the no progress counter for them
+ */
+ if (did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
+ *no_progress_loops = 0;
+ else
+ (*no_progress_loops)++;
+
+ /*
* Make sure we converge to OOM if we cannot make any progress
* several times in the row.
*/
- if (no_progress_loops > MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES)
+ if (*no_progress_loops > MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES)
return false;
/*
@@ -3425,7 +3435,7 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
unsigned long reclaimable;
available = reclaimable = zone_reclaimable_pages(zone);
- available -= DIV_ROUND_UP(no_progress_loops * available,
+ available -= DIV_ROUND_UP((*no_progress_loops) * available,
MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES);
available += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
@@ -3641,18 +3651,8 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT))
goto nopage;
- /*
- * Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean
- * their order will become available due to high fragmentation so
- * always increment the no progress counter for them
- */
- if (did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
- no_progress_loops = 0;
- else
- no_progress_loops++;
-
if (should_reclaim_retry(gfp_mask, order, ac, alloc_flags,
- did_some_progress > 0, no_progress_loops))
+ did_some_progress > 0, &no_progress_loops))
goto retry;
/*
--
2.10.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists