linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority

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]

Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:06:29 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
        '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 Fri 23-09-16 12:47:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/23/2016 10:23 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 23-09-16 08:55:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >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>
> > 
> > OK, this looks reasonable to me. Could you post both patches in a
> 
> Both? I would argue that [1] might be relevant because it resets the
> number of retries. Only the should_reclaim_retry() cleanup is not
> stricly needed.

Even if it is needed which I am not really sure about it would be
easier to track than in the middle of another thread.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs