linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: fix extreme overreclaim and swap floods

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: <Yup386Bq8Ek1VHJq@cmpxchg.org>
Date:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 09:28:19 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: fix extreme overreclaim and swap floods

On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 05:06:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue,  2 Aug 2022 12:28:11 -0400 Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> 
> > Change the code such that only one SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX-sized nudge toward
> > the larger LRU lists is made before bailing out on a met reclaim goal.
> 
> It seems rash to jam this into 5.20-rc1 at this stage.  I'm thinking
> 5.21-rc1 with a cc:stable?

Yeah, 5.20-rc1 sounds fast. Let's wait for reviews first and see how
much confidence we get on that change. I can't help but feel, reading
logs and comments (commit 1a501907bbea8e6ebb0b16cf6db9e9cbf1d2c813),
that my fix is how the code was intended to work from the start.

5.21 does sound a biiiit on the long side for fixing such extreme
misbehavior, IMO, once it's proven to affect production workloads in
the wild. I was hoping -rc2 or so...