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  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:   Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:59:00 -0800
From:   Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@...dia.com>,
        Nitin Gupta <nigupta@...dia.com>,
        David Nellans <dnellans@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/31] mm: migrate: Add exchange_pages to exchange two
 lists of pages.

On 18 Feb 2019, at 9:52, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 09:51:33AM -0800, Zi Yan wrote:
>> On 18 Feb 2019, at 9:42, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 2/18/19 6:31 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>> The purpose of proposing exchange_pages() is to avoid allocating any
>>>> new
>>>> page,
>>>> so that we would not trigger any potential page reclaim or memory
>>>> compaction.
>>>> Allocating a temporary page defeats the purpose.
>>>
>>> Compaction can only happen for order > 0 temporary pages. Even if you
>>> used
>>> single order = 0 page to gradually exchange e.g. a THP, it should be
>>> better than
>>> u64. Allocating order = 0 should be a non-issue. If it's an issue, then
>>> the
>>> system is in a bad state and physically contiguous layout is a secondary
>>> concern.
>>
>> You are right if we only need to allocate one order-0 page. But this also
>> means
>> we can only exchange two pages at a time. We need to add a lock to make sure
>> the temporary page is used exclusively or we need to keep allocating
>> temporary pages
>> when multiple exchange_pages() are happening at the same time.
>
> You allocate one temporary page per thread that's doing an exchange_page().

Yeah, you are right. I think at most I need NR_CPU order-0 pages. I will try
it. Thanks.

--
Best Regards,
Yan Zi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (855 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists