[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o8n8hv5p.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 16:43:14 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: paulmck@...nel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag
On Tue, Aug 18 2020 at 06:53, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:43:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> Thomas had a good point that it doesn't really make much sense to
>> optimize for flooders because that just makes them more effective.
>
> The point is not to make the flooders go faster, but rather for the
> system to be robust in the face of flooders. Robust as in harder for
> a flooder to OOM the system.
>
> And reducing the number of post-grace-period cache misses makes it
> easier for the callback-invocation-time memory freeing to keep up with
> the flooder, thus avoiding (or at least delaying) the OOM.
Throttling the flooder is incresing robustness far more than reducing
cache misses.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists