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:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 15:06:27 -0700
From:   Yang Shi <>
To:     Dave Hansen <>,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 7/9] mm: vmscan: check if the demote target node is
 contended or not

On 4/11/19 9:06 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/10/19 8:56 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>> When demoting to PMEM node, the target node may have memory pressure,
>> then the memory pressure may cause migrate_pages() fail.
>> If the failure is caused by memory pressure (i.e. returning -ENOMEM),
>> tag the node with PGDAT_CONTENDED.  The tag would be cleared once the
>> target node is balanced again.
>> Check if the target node is PGDAT_CONTENDED or not, if it is just skip
>> demotion.
> This seems like an actively bad idea to me.
> Why do we need an *active* note to say the node is contended?  Why isn't
> just getting a failure back from migrate_pages() enough?  Have you
> observed this in practice?

The flag will be used to check if the target node is contended or not 
before moving the page into the demotion list. If the target node is 
contended (i.e. GFP_NOWAIT would likely fail), the page reclaim code 
even won't scan anonymous page list on swapless system. It will just try 
to reclaim page cache. This would save some scanning time.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists