linux-kernel - Re: [v9 PATCH 13/13] mm: vmscan: shrink deferred objects proportional to priority

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, 10 Mar 2021 13:08:24 -0800
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v9 PATCH 13/13] mm: vmscan: shrink deferred objects proportional
 to priority

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:54 AM Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:24 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:46 AM Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The number of deferred objects might get windup to an absurd number, and it
> > > results in clamp of slab objects.  It is undesirable for sustaining workingset.
> > >
> > > So shrink deferred objects proportional to priority and cap nr_deferred to twice
> > > of cache items.
> > >
> > > The idea is borrowed from Dave Chinner's patch:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20191031234618.15403-13-david@fromorbit.com/
> > >
> > > Tested with kernel build and vfs metadata heavy workload in our production
> > > environment, no regression is spotted so far.
> >
> > Did you run both of these workloads in the same cgroup or separate cgroups?
>
> Both are covered.
>

Have you tried just this patch i.e. without the first 12 patches?