linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] mm/vmscan: more restrictive condition for retry in do_try_to_free

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: <20170315124117.GH32620@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:41:18 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...e.de,
        vbabka@...e.cz, riel@...hat.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        guohanjun@...wei.com, qiuxishi@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/vmscan: more restrictive condition for retry in
 do_try_to_free_pages

On Wed 15-03-17 19:36:48, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> By reviewing code, I find that when enter do_try_to_free_pages, the
> may_thrash is always clear, and it will retry shrink zones to tap
> cgroup's reserves memory by setting may_thrash when the former
> shrink_zones reclaim nothing.
> 
> However, when memcg is disabled or on legacy hierarchy, or there do not
> have any memcg protected by low limit, it should not do this useless retry
> at all, for we do not have any cgroup's reserves memory to tap, and we
> have already done hard work but made no progress.
> 
> To avoid this unneeded retrying, add a new field in scan_control named
> memcg_low_protection, set it if there is any memcg protected by low limit
> and only do the retry when memcg_low_protection is set while may_thrash
> is clear.

You still haven't explained why a retry is bad thing. It certainly is
not about performance because not a single page being reclaimed means
that all the performance went to hell already. Please always make it
clear why the change is needed/desirable.

But I agree that this makes the code easier to understand so I am OK
with this change.

> Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> Suggested-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>

> ---
> v4:
>  - add a new field in scan_control named memcg_low_protection to check whether
>    there have any memcg protected by low limit. - Michal
> 
> v3:
>  - rename function may_thrash() to mem_cgroup_thrashed() to avoid confusing.
> 
> v2:
>  - more restrictive condition for retry of shrink_zones (restricting
>    cgroup_disabled=memory boot option and cgroup legacy hierarchy) - Shakeel
> 
>  - add a stub function may_thrash() to avoid compile error or warning.
> 
>  - rename subject from "donot retry shrink zones when memcg is disable"
>    to "more restrictive condition for retry in do_try_to_free_pages"
> 
> Any comment is more than welcome!
> 
> Thanks
> Yisheng Xie
> 
>  mm/vmscan.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index bc8031e..c4fa3d3 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -100,6 +100,9 @@ struct scan_control {
>  	/* Can cgroups be reclaimed below their normal consumption range? */
>  	unsigned int may_thrash:1;
>  
> +	/* Did we have any memcg protected by the low limit */
> +	unsigned int memcg_low_protection:1;
> +
>  	unsigned int hibernation_mode:1;
>  
>  	/* One of the zones is ready for compaction */
> @@ -2557,6 +2560,8 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>  			unsigned long scanned;
>  
>  			if (mem_cgroup_low(root, memcg)) {
> +				sc->memcg_low_protection = 1;
> +
>  				if (!sc->may_thrash)
>  					continue;
>  				mem_cgroup_events(memcg, MEMCG_LOW, 1);
> @@ -2808,7 +2813,7 @@ static unsigned long do_try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist,
>  		return 1;
>  
>  	/* Untapped cgroup reserves?  Don't OOM, retry. */
> -	if (!sc->may_thrash) {
> +	if (sc->memcg_low_protection && !sc->may_thrash) {
>  		sc->priority = initial_priority;
>  		sc->may_thrash = 1;
>  		goto retry;
> -- 
> 1.7.12.4
> 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs