linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] mm/compaction: correct deferral logic for 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]

Message-ID: <627a82ec-94ef-a233-4637-28bc82a886e9@google.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Jan 2021 14:54:47 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
cc:     Charan Teja Reddy <charante@...eaurora.org>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, khalid.aziz@...cle.com,
        ngupta@...ingupta.dev, vinmenon@...eaurora.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] mm/compaction: correct deferral logic for proactive
 compaction

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> On 1/19/21 8:26 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Charan Teja Reddy wrote:
> > 
> >> should_proactive_compact_node() returns true when sum of the
> >> weighted fragmentation score of all the zones in the node is greater
> >> than the wmark_high of compaction, which then triggers the proactive
> >> compaction that operates on the individual zones of the node. But
> >> proactive compaction runs on the zone only when its weighted
> >> fragmentation score is greater than wmark_low(=wmark_high - 10).
> >> 
> >> This means that the sum of the weighted fragmentation scores of all the
> >> zones can exceed the wmark_high but individual weighted fragmentation
> >> zone scores can still be less than wmark_low which makes the unnecessary
> >> trigger of the proactive compaction only to return doing nothing.
> >> 
> >> Issue with the return of proactive compaction with out even trying is
> >> its deferral. It is simply deferred for 1 << COMPACT_MAX_DEFER_SHIFT if
> >> the scores across the proactive compaction is same, thinking that
> >> compaction didn't make any progress but in reality it didn't even try.
> > 
> > Isn't this an issue in deferred compaction as well?  It seems like 
> > deferred compaction should check that work was actually performed before 
> > deferring subsequent calls to compaction.
> 
> Direct compaction does, proactive not.
> 
> > In other words, I don't believe deferred compaction is intended to avoid 
> > checks to determine if compaction is worth it; it should only defer 
> > *additional* work that was not productive.
> 
> Yeah, that should be more optimal.
> 

Charan, is this something you'd like to follow up on, or should I take a 
look instead?

Thanks!