linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/3] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan

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: <20170117103702.28542-3-mhocko@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:37:01 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

get_scan_count considers the whole node LRU size when
- doing SCAN_FILE due to many page cache inactive pages
- calculating the number of pages to scan

in both cases this might lead to unexpected behavior especially on 32b
systems where we can expect lowmem memory pressure very often.

A large highmem zone can easily distort SCAN_FILE heuristic because
there might be only few file pages from the eligible zones on the node
lru and we would still enforce file lru scanning which can lead to
trashing while we could still scan anonymous pages.

The later use of lruvec_lru_size can be problematic as well. Especially
when there are not many pages from the eligible zones. We would have to
skip over many pages to find anything to reclaim but shrink_node_memcg
would only reduce the remaining number to scan by SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX
at maximum. Therefore we can end up going over a large LRU many times
without actually having chance to reclaim much if anything at all. The
closer we are out of memory on lowmem zone the worse the problem will
be.

Fix this by filtering out all the ineligible zones when calculating the
lru size for both paths and consider only sc->reclaim_idx zones.

Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
---
 mm/vmscan.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index aed39dc272c0..ffac8fa7bdd8 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2235,7 +2235,7 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
 	 * system is under heavy pressure.
 	 */
 	if (!inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, true, sc, false) &&
-	    lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES) >> sc->priority) {
+	    lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, sc->reclaim_idx) >> sc->priority) {
 		scan_balance = SCAN_FILE;
 		goto out;
 	}
@@ -2302,7 +2302,7 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
 			unsigned long size;
 			unsigned long scan;

-			size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, MAX_NR_ZONES);
+			size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, sc->reclaim_idx);
 			scan = size >> sc->priority;

 			if (!scan && pass && force_scan)
-- 
2.11.0