linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm,thp: stop leaking unreleased file pages

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: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2006031506500.32284@eggly.anvils>
Date:   Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,thp: stop leaking unreleased file pages

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 02:28:10PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Saying "source inspection" reminds me: there is another funny in there,
> > but I don't think it matters very much in practice, and might need
> > rather a lot of testing to justify any particular patch: where
> > page_cache_sync_readahead() asks for PAGE_SIZE pages!
> > 
> > "end - index" seems a more reasonable number to me: but then we
> > might find that reading ahead into the next huge extent had actually
> > been a useful optimization (and those readahead functions impose
> > their own caps, so PAGE_SIZE shouldn't work out too outrageously).
> 
> That readahead was only added in 99cb0dbd47a15d395bf3faa78dc122bc5efe3fc0
> so it probably hasn't really been performance tested yet.

I can well imagine that an entirely new body of code, exercised
in the background by khugepaged, will not be a leading candidate for
performance comparisons - rightly so; but arguing that by the commit
being in the tree for only eight months seems... odd :)

Hugh