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: <20170914081547.GC5533@bbox> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:15:47 +0900 From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -v4 3/5] mm, swap: VMA based swap readahead On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 08:53:04AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > Hi, Andrew, > > Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes: > > > On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:40:19 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote: > > > >> Every zram users like low-end android device has used 0 page-cluster > >> to disable swap readahead because it has no seek cost and works as > >> synchronous IO operation so if we do readahead multiple pages, > >> swap falut latency would be (4K * readahead window size). IOW, > >> readahead is meaningful only if it doesn't bother faulted page's > >> latency. > >> > >> However, this patch introduces additional knob /sys/kernel/mm/swap/ > >> vma_ra_max_order as well as page-cluster. It means existing users > >> has used disabled swap readahead doesn't work until they should be > >> aware of new knob and modification of their script/code to disable > >> vma_ra_max_order as well as page-cluster. > >> > >> I say it's a *regression* and wanted to fix it but Huang's opinion > >> is that it's not a functional regression so userspace should be fixed > >> by themselves. > >> Please look into detail of discussion in > >> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/%3C1505183833-4739-4-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org%3E > > > > hm, tricky problem. I do agree that linking the physical and virtual > > readahead schemes in the proposed fashion is unfortunate. I also agree > > that breaking existing setups (a bit) is also unfortunate. > > > > Would it help if, when page-cluster is written to zero, we do > > > > printk_once("physical readahead disabled, virtual readahead still > > enabled. Disable virtual readhead via > > /sys/kernel/mm/swap/vma_ra_max_order"). > > > > Or something like that. It's pretty lame, but it should help alert the > > zram-readahead-disabling people to the issue? > > This sounds good for me. > > Hi, Minchan, what do you think about this? I think for low-end android > device, the end-user may have no opportunity to upgrade to the latest > kernel, the device vendor should care about this. For desktop users, > the warning proposed by Andrew may help to remind them for the new knob. Yes, it would be option. At least, we should alert to the user to make a chance to fix. However, can't we make vma-based readahead new config option? Please look at the detail in my reply of andrew. With that, there is no regression with current users and as a bonus, user can measure both algorithm with their real workload with both algorithm rather than artificial benchmark. I think recency vs spartial locality would have each pros and cons so that kind soft landing would be safer option rather than sudden replacing. After a while, we can set new algorithm as default.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists