linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8] mm: Proactive compaction

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]

Date:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:02:59 -0700
From:   Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...ingupta.dev>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nitin Gupta <nigupta@...dia.com>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] mm: Proactive compaction



On 6/17/20 1:53 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:45:27 -0700 Nitin Gupta <nigupta@...dia.com> wrote:
> 
>> For some applications, we need to allocate almost all memory as
>> hugepages. However, on a running system, higher-order allocations can
>> fail if the memory is fragmented. Linux kernel currently does on-demand
>> compaction as we request more hugepages, but this style of compaction
>> incurs very high latency. Experiments with one-time full memory
>> compaction (followed by hugepage allocations) show that kernel is able
>> to restore a highly fragmented memory state to a fairly compacted memory
>> state within <1 sec for a 32G system. Such data suggests that a more
>> proactive compaction can help us allocate a large fraction of memory as
>> hugepages keeping allocation latencies low.
>>
>> ...
>>
> 
> All looks straightforward to me and easy to disable if it goes wrong.
> 
> All the hard-coded magic numbers are a worry, but such is life.
> 
> One teeny complaint:
> 
>>
>> ...
>>
>> @@ -2650,12 +2801,34 @@ static int kcompactd(void *p)
>>   		unsigned long pflags;
>>   
>>   		trace_mm_compaction_kcompactd_sleep(pgdat->node_id);
>> -		wait_event_freezable(pgdat->kcompactd_wait,
>> -				kcompactd_work_requested(pgdat));
>> +		if (wait_event_freezable_timeout(pgdat->kcompactd_wait,
>> +			kcompactd_work_requested(pgdat),
>> +			msecs_to_jiffies(HPAGE_FRAG_CHECK_INTERVAL_MSEC))) {
>> +
>> +			psi_memstall_enter(&pflags);
>> +			kcompactd_do_work(pgdat);
>> +			psi_memstall_leave(&pflags);
>> +			continue;
>> +		}
>>   
>> -		psi_memstall_enter(&pflags);
>> -		kcompactd_do_work(pgdat);
>> -		psi_memstall_leave(&pflags);
>> +		/* kcompactd wait timeout */
>> +		if (should_proactive_compact_node(pgdat)) {
>> +			unsigned int prev_score, score;
> 
> Everywhere else, scores have type `int'.  Here they are unsigned.  How come?
> 
> Would it be better to make these unsigned throughout?  I don't think a
> score can ever be negative?
> 

The score is always in [0, 100], so yes, it should be unsigned.
I will send another patch which fixes this.

Thanks,
Nitin