linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2 -mm] mm: account lazy free pages separately

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: <20190814125334.GX17933@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 14:53:34 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
        rientjes@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2 -mm] mm: account lazy free pages separately

On Wed 14-08-19 14:49:18, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 8/9/19 8:26 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
> > Here the new counter is introduced for patch 2/2 to account deferred 
> > split THPs into available memory since NR_ANON_THPS may contain 
> > non-deferred split THPs.
> > 
> > I could use an internal counter for deferred split THPs, but if it is 
> > accounted by mod_node_page_state, why not just show it in /proc/meminfo? 
> 
> The answer to "Why not" is that it becomes part of userspace API (btw this
> patchset should have CC'd linux-api@ - please do for further iterations) and
> even if the implementation detail of deferred splitting might change in the
> future, we'll basically have to keep the counter (even with 0 value) in
> /proc/meminfo forever.
> 
> Also, quite recently we have added the following counter:
> 
> KReclaimable: Kernel allocations that the kernel will attempt to reclaim
>               under memory pressure. Includes SReclaimable (below), and other
>               direct allocations with a shrinker.
> 
> Although THP allocations are not exactly "kernel allocations", once they are
> unmapped, they are in fact kernel-only, so IMHO it wouldn't be a big stretch to
> add the lazy THP pages there?

That would indeed fit in much better than a dedicated counter.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs