linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: fix not scanning anonymous pages when detecting file refaults

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

Message-ID: <20190628084455.GA59379@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:44:55 +0800
From:   Vovo Yang <vovoy@...omium.org>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: fix not scanning anonymous pages when
 detecting file refaults

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 03:51:38PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:41:23PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> > 
> > Your change makes sense - we should indeed not force cache trimming
> > only while the page cache is experiencing refaults.
> > 
> > I can't say I fully understand the changelog, though. The problem of
> 
> I guess the point of the patch is "actual_reclaim" paramter made divergency
> to balance file vs. anon LRU in get_scan_count. Thus, it ends up scanning
> file LRU active/inactive list at file thrashing state.
> 
> So, Fixes: 2a2e48854d70 ("mm: vmscan: fix IO/refault regression in cache workingset transition")
> would make sense to me since it introduces the parameter.
> 

Thanks for the review and explanation, I will update the changelog to
make it clear.

> > forcing cache trimming while there is enough page cache is older than
> > the commit you refer to. It could be argued that this commit is
> > incomplete - it could have added refault detection not just to
> > inactive:active file balancing, but also the file:anon balancing; but
> > it didn't *cause* this problem.
> > 
> > Shouldn't this be
> > 
> > Fixes: e9868505987a ("mm,vmscan: only evict file pages when we have plenty")
> > Fixes: 7c5bd705d8f9 ("mm: memcg: only evict file pages when we have plenty")
> 
> That would affect, too but it would be trouble to have stable backport
> since we don't have refault machinery in there.