linux-kernel - Re: MADV_HUGEPAGE vs. NUMA semantic (was: Re: [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3% regression)

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1812071512040.173448@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:15:37 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, ying.huang@...el.com,
        s.priebe@...fihost.ag,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, lkp@...org, kirill@...temov.name,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        zi.yan@...rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: MADV_HUGEPAGE vs. NUMA semantic (was: Re: [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891:
 vm-scalability.throughput -61.3% regression)

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> >> But *that* in turn makes for other possible questions:
> >>
> >>  - if the reason we couldn't get a local hugepage is that we're simply
> >> out of local memory (huge *or* small), then maybe a remote hugepage is
> >> better.
> >>
> >>    Note that this now implies that the choice can be an issue of "did
> >> the hugepage allocation fail due to fragmentation, or due to the node
> >> being low of memory"
> > How exactly do you tell? Many systems are simply low on memory due to
> > caching. A clean pagecache is quite cheap to reclaim but it can be more
> > expensive to fault in. Do we consider it to be a viable target?
> 
> Compaction can report if it failed (more precisely: was skipped) due to
> low memory, or for other reasons. It doesn't distinguish how easily
> reclaimable is the memory, but I don't think we should reclaim anything
> (see below).
> 

Note that just reclaiming when the order-0 watermark in 
__compaction_suitable() fails is unfortunately not always sufficient: it 
needs to be accessible to isolate_freepages().  For order-9 memory, it's 
possible for isolate_migratepages_block() to skip over a top of free pages 
that were just reclaimed if there are unmovable pages preventing the 
entire pageblock from being freed.