linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] mm: disable top-tier fallback to reclaim on proactive reclaim

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: <20221202133840.5cdd4270cf73eaaa1d9d0345@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 2 Dec 2022 13:38:40 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc:     Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, weixugc@...gle.com,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com, fvdl@...gle.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm: disable top-tier fallback to reclaim on
 proactive reclaim

On Thu,  1 Dec 2022 15:33:17 -0800 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com> wrote:

> Reclaiming directly from top tier nodes breaks the aging pipeline of
> memory tiers.  If we have a RAM -> CXL -> storage hierarchy, we
> should demote from RAM to CXL and from CXL to storage. If we reclaim
> a page from RAM, it means we 'demote' it directly from RAM to storage,
> bypassing potentially a huge amount of pages colder than it in CXL.
> 
> However disabling reclaim from top tier nodes entirely would cause ooms
> in edge scenarios where lower tier memory is unreclaimable for whatever
> reason, e.g. memory being mlocked() or too hot to reclaim.  In these
> cases we would rather the job run with a performance regression rather
> than it oom altogether.
> 
> However, we can disable reclaim from top tier nodes for proactive reclaim.
> That reclaim is not real memory pressure, and we don't have any cause to
> be breaking the aging pipeline.
> 

Is this purely from code inspection, or are there quantitative
observations to be shared?