linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm, drm/i915: mark pinned shmemfs pages as unevictable

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: <cc44aa53-8705-02ea-6c59-f311427d93af@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Oct 2018 07:40:14 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Kuo-Hsin Yang <vovoy@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm, drm/i915: mark pinned shmemfs pages as unevictable

On 10/31/18 7:24 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am also wondering whether unevictable pages culling can be
> really visible when we do the anon LRU reclaim because the swap path is
> quite expensinve on its own.

Didn't we create the unevictable lists in the first place because
scanning alone was observed to be so expensive in some scenarios?

Or am I misunderstanding your question.