linux-kernel - Re: [v4 PATCH 2/2] mm: vmscan: correct some vmscan counters for

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 14:00:00 +0800
From:   Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc:     ying.huang@...el.com, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...e.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        josef@...icpanda.com, hughd@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v4 PATCH 2/2] mm: vmscan: correct some vmscan counters for



On 5/24/19 1:51 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 09:27:02 +0800 Yang Shi wrote:
>> On 5/23/19 11:51 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2019 10:27:38 +0800 Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> @ -1642,14 +1650,14 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>>>>    	unsigned long nr_zone_taken[MAX_NR_ZONES] = { 0 };
>>>>    	unsigned long nr_skipped[MAX_NR_ZONES] = { 0, };
>>>>    	unsigned long skipped = 0;
>>>> -	unsigned long scan, total_scan, nr_pages;
>>>> +	unsigned long scan, total_scan;
>>>> +	unsigned long nr_pages;
>>> Change for no earn:)
>> Aha, yes.
>>
>>>>    	LIST_HEAD(pages_skipped);
>>>>    	isolate_mode_t mode = (sc->may_unmap ? 0 : ISOLATE_UNMAPPED);
>>>> +	total_scan = 0;
>>>>    	scan = 0;
>>>> -	for (total_scan = 0;
>>>> -	     scan < nr_to_scan && nr_taken < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src);
>>>> -	     total_scan++) {
>>>> +	while (scan < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src)) {
>>>>    		struct page *page;
>>> AFAICS scan currently prevents us from looping for ever, while nr_taken bails
>>> us out once we get what's expected, so I doubt it makes much sense to cut
>>> nr_taken off.
>> It is because "scan < nr_to_scan && nr_taken >= nr_to_scan" is
>> impossible now with the units fixed.
>>
> With the units fixed, nr_taken is no longer checked.

It is because scan would be always >= nr_taken.

>
>>>>    		page = lru_to_page(src);
>>>> @@ -1657,9 +1665,12 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>>>>    		VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLRU(page), page);
>>>> +		nr_pages = 1 << compound_order(page);
>>>> +		total_scan += nr_pages;
>>>> +
>>>>    		if (page_zonenum(page) > sc->reclaim_idx) {
>>>>    			list_move(&page->lru, &pages_skipped);
>>>> -			nr_skipped[page_zonenum(page)]++;
>>>> +			nr_skipped[page_zonenum(page)] += nr_pages;
>>>>    			continue;
>>>>    		}
>>>> @@ -1669,10 +1680,9 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>>>>    		 * ineligible pages.  This causes the VM to not reclaim any
>>>>    		 * pages, triggering a premature OOM.
>>>>    		 */
>>>> -		scan++;
>>>> +		scan += nr_pages;
>>> The comment looks to defy the change if we fail to add a huge page to
>>> the dst list; otherwise nr_taken knows how to do the right thing. What
>>> I prefer is to let scan to do one thing a time.
>> I don't get your point. Do you mean the comment "Do not count skipped
>> pages because that makes the function return with no isolated pages if
>> the LRU mostly contains ineligible pages."? I'm supposed the comment is
>> used to explain why not count skipped page.
>>
> Well consider the case where there is a huge page in the second place
> reversely on the src list along with other 20 regular pages, and we are
> not able to add the huge page to the dst list. Currently we can go on and
> try to scan other pages, provided nr_to_scan is 32; with the units fixed,
> however, scan goes over nr_to_scan, leaving us no chance to scan any page
> that may be not busy. I wonder that triggers a premature OOM, because I
> think scan means the number of list nodes we try to isolate, and
> nr_taken the number of regular pages successfully isolated.

Yes, good point. I think I just need roll back to what v3 did here to 
get scan accounted for each case separately to avoid the possible 
over-account.

>>>>    		switch (__isolate_lru_page(page, mode)) {
>>>>    		case 0:
>>>> -			nr_pages = hpage_nr_pages(page);
>>>>    			nr_taken += nr_pages;
>>>>    			nr_zone_taken[page_zonenum(page)] += nr_pages;
>>>>    			list_move(&page->lru, dst);
>>>> --
>>>> 1.8.3.1
> Best Regards
> Hillf