linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm:vmscan: fix inaccurate reclaim during 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 12:24:40 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Efly Young <yangyifei03@...ishou.com>
Cc:     cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm:vmscan: fix inaccurate reclaim during proactive
 reclaim

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 03:27:08PM +0800, Efly Young wrote:
> Before commit f53af4285d77 ("mm: vmscan: fix extreme overreclaim and
> swap floods"), proactive reclaim will extreme overreclaim sometimes.
> But proactive reclaim still inaccurate and some extent overreclaim.
> 
> Problematic case is easy to construct. Allocate lots of anonymous
> memory (e.g., 20G) in a memcg, then swapping by writing memory.recalim
> and there is a certain probability of overreclaim. For example, request
> 1G by writing memory.reclaim will eventually reclaim 1.7G or other
> values more than 1G.
> 
> The reason is that reclaimer may have already reclaimed part of requested
> memory in one loop, but before adjust sc->nr_to_reclaim in outer loop,
> call shrink_lruvec() again will still follow the current sc->nr_to_reclaim
> to work. It will eventually lead to overreclaim. In theory, the amount
> of reclaimed would be in [request, 2 * request).
> 
> Reclaimer usually tends to reclaim more than request. But either direct
> or kswapd reclaim have much smaller nr_to_reclaim targets, so it is
> less noticeable and not have much impact.
> 
> Proactive reclaim can usually come in with a larger value, so the error
> is difficult to ignore. Considering proactive reclaim is usually low
> frequency, handle the batching into smaller chunks is a better approach.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Efly Young <yangyifei03@...ishou.com>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>

Hey, I didn't write the patch, you did :) Please change it to

Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>

You can also add

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>

[quoting remainder for new CCs]

> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 4b27e24..d36cf88 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -6741,8 +6741,8 @@ static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
>  			lru_add_drain_all();
>  
>  		reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg,
> -						nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed,
> -						GFP_KERNEL, reclaim_options);
> +					min(nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX),
> +					GFP_KERNEL, reclaim_options);
>  
>  		if (!reclaimed && !nr_retries--)
>  			return -EAGAIN;
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1