linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: reclaim more aggressively before high allocator throttling

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: <20200528211441.GA3410@chrisdown.name>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 22:14:41 +0100
From:   Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: reclaim more aggressively before high
 allocator throttling

Johannes Weiner writes:
>> I don't feel strongly either way, but current->memcg_nr_pages_over_high can
>> be very large for large allocations.
>>
>> That said, maybe we should just reclaim `max(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, current -
>> high)` for each loop? I agree that with this design it looks like perhaps we
>> don't need it any more.
>>
>> Johannes, what do you think?
>
>How about this:
>
>Reclaim memcg_nr_pages_over_high in the first iteration, then switch
>to SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX in the retries.
>
>This acknowledges that while the page allocator and memory.max reclaim
>every time an allocation is made, memory.high is currently batched and
>can have larger targets. We want the allocating thread to reclaim at
>least the batch size, but beyond that only what's necessary to prevent
>premature OOM or failing containment.
>
>Add a comment stating as much.
>
>Once we reclaim memory.high synchronously instead of batched, this
>exceptional handling is no longer needed and can be deleted again.
>
>Does that sound reasonable?

That sounds good to me, thanks. I'll change that in v2 soonish and update the 
changelog.