linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions

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]

Message-ID: <20160923082627.GE4478@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:26:28 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
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, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions

On Thu 22-09-16 17:18:48, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 07:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 06-09-16 15:52:54, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > 
> > We still do not ignore fragindex in the full priority. This part has
> > always been quite unclear to me so I cannot really tell whether that
> > makes any difference or not but just to be on the safe side I would
> > preffer to have _all_ the shortcuts out of the way in the highest
> > priority. It is true that this will cause COMPACT_NOT_SUITABLE_ZONE
> > so keep retrying but still a complication to understand the workflow.
> > 
> > What do you think?
>  
> I was thinking that this shouldn't be a problem on non-costly orders and default
> extfrag_threshold. But better be safe. Moreover I think the issue is much more
> dangerous for compact_zonelist_suitable() as explained below.
> 
> ----8<----
> >From 0e6cb251aa6e3b1be7deff315c0238c4d478f22e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:33:57 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] mm, compaction: ignore fragindex on highest direct compaction
>  priority
> 
> Fragmentation index check in compaction_suitable() should be the last heuristic
> that we allow on the highest compaction priority. Since that's a potential
> premature OOM, disable it too. Even more problematic is its usage from
> compaction_zonelist_suitable() -> __compaction_suitable() where we check the
> order-0 watermark against free plus available-for-reclaim pages, but the
> fragindex considers only truly free pages. Thus we can get a result close to 0
> indicating failure do to lack of memory, and wrongly decide that compaction
> won't be suitable even after reclaim. The solution is to skip the fragindex
> check also in this context, regardless of priority.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> ---
>  include/linux/compaction.h |  5 +++--
>  mm/compaction.c            | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  mm/internal.h              |  1 +
>  mm/vmscan.c                |  6 ++++--
>  4 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

This is much more code churn than I expected. I was thiking about it
some more and I am really wondering whether it actually make any sense
to check the fragidx for !costly orders. Wouldn't it be much simpler to
just put it out of the way for those regardless of the compaction
priority. In other words does this check makes any measurable difference
for !costly orders?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs