linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Ignore non-LRU-based reclaim in memcg 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJD7tkZm2-Xx1axfhMH9wD4cJK5ySwg=kn9oXWeSBAR4npNp2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 11:55:53 -0700
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Ignore non-LRU-based reclaim in memcg reclaim

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:48 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:46:30 -0700 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > > But the key question remains: how desirable is a backport?
> > >
> > > Looking at the changelogs I'm not seeing a clear statement of the
> > > impact upon real-world users' real-world workloads.  (This is a hint).
> > > So I am unable to judge.
> > >
> > > Please share your thoughts on this.
> >
> > I think it's nice to have but not really important. It occasionally
> > causes writes to memory.reclaim to report false positives and *might*
> > cause unnecessary retrying when charging memory, but probably too rare
> > to be a practical problem.
> >
> > Personally, I intend to backport to our kernel at Google because it's
> > a simple enough fix and we have occasionally seen test flakiness
> > without it.
> >
> > I have a reworked version of the series that only has 2 patches:
> > - simple-two-liner-patch (actually 5 lines)
> > - one patch including all refactoring squashed (introducing
> > flush_reclaim_state() with the huge comment, introducing
> > mm_account_reclaimed_pages(), and moving set_task_reclaim_state()
> > around).
> >
> > Let me know if you want me to send it as v5, or leave the current v4
> > if you think backporting is not generally important.
>
> Let's have a look at that v5 and see what people think?

Sent v5 [1]. Thanks Andrew!

[1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230405185427.1246289-1-yosryahmed@google.com/