linux-kernel - Re: [Question] Why PageReadahead is not migrated by migration code?

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: <185ce762-f25d-a013-6daa-8c288f1ff791@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:04:38 -0800
From:   Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Question] Why PageReadahead is not migrated by migration code?



On 2/13/20 9:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:06:58AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>> Recently we saw some PageReadahead related bugs, so I did a quick check
>> about the use of PageReadahead. I just found the state is *not* migrated by
>> migrate_page_states().
>>
>> Since migrate_page() won't migrate writeback page, so if PageReadahead is
>> set it should just mean PG_readahead rather than PG_reclaim. So, I didn't
>> think of why it is not migrated.
>>
>> I dig into the history a little bit, but the change in migration code is too
>> overwhelming. But, it looks PG_readahead was added after migration was
>> introduced. Is it just a simple omission?
> It's probably more that it just doesn't matter enough.  If the Readahead
> flag is missing on a page then the application will perform slightly worse
> for a few pages as it ramps its readahead back up again.  On the other
> hand, you just migrated its pages to a different NUMA node, so chances
> are there are bigger perofmrance problems happening at this moment anyway.
>
> I think we probably should migrate it, but I can understand why nobody's
> noticed it before.

Thanks. I tend to agree the slight performance loss might be hidden by 
other things.