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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 2 Jan 2019 10:12:04 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <>
To:     Michal Hocko <>,
        Fengguang Wu <>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <>,
        Linux Memory Management List <>,, LKML <>,
        Fan Du <>, Yao Yuan <>,
        Peng Dong <>,
        Huang Ying <>,
        Liu Jingqi <>,
        Dong Eddie <>,
        Zhang Yi <>,
        Dan Williams <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 00/21] PMEM NUMA node and hotness

On 12/28/18 12:41 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> It can be done in kernel page reclaim path, near the anonymous page
>> swap out point. Instead of swapping out, we now have the option to
>> migrate cold pages to PMEM NUMA nodes.
> OK, this makes sense to me except I am not sure this is something that
> should be pmem specific. Is there any reason why we shouldn't migrate
> pages on memory pressure to other nodes in general? In other words
> rather than paging out we whould migrate over to the next node that is
> not under memory pressure. Swapout would be the next level when the
> memory is (almost_) fully utilized. That wouldn't be pmem specific.

Yeah, we don't want to make this specific to any particular kind of
memory.  For instance, with lots of pressure on expensive, small
high-bandwidth memory (HBM), we might want to migrate some HBM contents
to DRAM.

We need to decide on whether we want to cause pressure on the
destination nodes or not, though.  I think you're suggesting that we try
to look for things under some pressure and totally avoid them.  That
sounds sane, but I also like the idea of this being somewhat ordered.

Think of if we have three nodes, A, B, C.  A is fast, B is medium, C is
slow.  If A and B are "full" and we want to reclaim some of A, do we:

1. Migrate A->B, and put pressure on a later B->C migration, or
2. Migrate A->C directly


Doing A->C is less resource intensive because there's only one migration
involved.  But, doing A->B/B->C probably makes the app behave better
because the "A data" is presumably more valuable and is more
appropriately placed in B rather than being demoted all the way to C.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists