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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:06:35 +0100 From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de, cl@...ux.com, hannes@...xchg.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, jannh@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mhocko@...nel.org, minchan@...nel.org, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, surenb@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] mm, slub: add shrinker to reclaim cached slabs On 1/22/21 1:48 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 06:21:54PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > Hi Vlastimil! > > This makes a lot of sense, however it looks a bit as an overkill to me (on 5.9+). > Isn't limiting a number of pages (instead of number of objects) sufficient on 5.9+? It would help, but fundamentally there can still be a lot of memory locked up with e.g. many CPU's. We should have a way to flush this automatically, like for other cached things. > If not, maybe we can limit the shrinking to the pre-OOM condition? > Do we really need to trip it constantly? The priority could be reduced, pre-OOM might be too extreme. Why reclaim e.g. actually used LRU pages instead of unused slab pages? IMHO a frequently reclaiming system probably doesn't benefit from SLUB's peak performance at that point anyway... > Thanks! >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists