linux-kernel - Re: question: should_compact

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2ab55bf9-96f0-9616-555a-b7e3a399522b@suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 18:33:45 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: question: should_compact_retry limit

On 6/5/19 6:05 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 6/5/19 12:58 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 6/5/19 1:30 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> Hmm I guess we didn't expect compaction_withdrawn() to be so
>> consistently returned. Do you know what value of compact_result is there
>> in your test?
> 
> Added some instrumentation to record values and ran test,
> 
> 557904 Total
> 
> 549186 COMPACT_DEFERRED

Retrying mindlessly with compaction deferred sounds definitely wrong,
I'll try to look at it. Thanks.

>   8718 COMPACT_PARTIAL_SKIPPED
> 
> Do note that this is not my biggest problem with these allocations.  That is
> should_continue_reclaim returning true more often that in should.  Still
> trying to get more info on that.  This was just something curious I also
> discovered.
>