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:   Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:17:51 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <>
To:     Andrey Ryabinin <>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <>,
        Tejun Heo <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        Michal Hocko <>,
        Shakeel Butt <>,
        Steven Rostedt <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] mm/vmscan: Don't change pgdat state on base of a
 single LRU list state.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:20:28 +0300 Andrey Ryabinin <> wrote:

> We have separate LRU list for each memory cgroup. Memory reclaim iterates
> over cgroups and calls shrink_inactive_list() every inactive LRU list.
> Based on the state of a single LRU shrink_inactive_list() may flag
> the whole node as dirty,congested or under writeback. This is obviously
> wrong and hurtful. It's especially hurtful when we have possibly
> small congested cgroup in system. Than *all* direct reclaims waste time
> by sleeping in wait_iff_congested(). And the more memcgs in the system
> we have the longer memory allocation stall is, because
> wait_iff_congested() called on each lru-list scan.
> Sum reclaim stats across all visited LRUs on node and flag node as dirty,
> congested or under writeback based on that sum. Also call
> congestion_wait(), wait_iff_congested() once per pgdat scan, instead of
> once per lru-list scan.
> This only fixes the problem for global reclaim case. Per-cgroup reclaim
> may alter global pgdat flags too, which is wrong. But that is separate
> issue and will be addressed in the next patch.
> This change will not have any effect on a systems with all workload
> concentrated in a single cgroup.

Could we please get this reviewed?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists