linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: vmscan: Reduce throttling due to a failure to make progress

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: <c2aee7e6b9096556aab9b47156e91082c9345a90.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Tue, 30 Nov 2021 18:59:58 +0100
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Alexey Avramov <hakavlad@...ox.lv>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Darrick Wong <djwong@...nel.org>, regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
        Linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: vmscan: Reduce throttling due to a failure to
 make progress

On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 17:27 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> Obviously a fairly different experience and most likely due to the
> underlying storage.

I bet a virtual nickle this is the sore spot.

---
 mm/vmscan.c |   10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -3360,7 +3360,17 @@ static void shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat
 	if (!current_is_kswapd() && current_may_throttle() &&
 	    !sc->hibernation_mode &&
 	    test_bit(LRUVEC_CONGESTED, &target_lruvec->flags))
+#if 0
 		reclaim_throttle(pgdat, VMSCAN_THROTTLE_WRITEBACK);
+#else
+		/*
+		 * wait_iff_congested() used to live here and was
+		 * _apparently_ a misspelled cond_resched()?????
+		 * In any case, we are most definitely NOT starting
+		 * any IO in reclaim_throttle(), so why bother?
+		 */
+		cond_resched();
+#endif

 	if (should_continue_reclaim(pgdat, sc->nr_reclaimed -
nr_reclaimed,
 				    sc))