linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] mm: add swapiness= arg to memory.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: <CAOUHufZsf0WYQcUyMz7EcyvFYpaL4wLDZBW8oz9CgB5qZqSGAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 16:57:49 -0700
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, 
	Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>, 
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, 
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, 
	Yue Zhao <findns94@...il.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] mm: add swapiness= arg to memory.reclaim

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:09 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 03-01-24 08:48:37, Dan Schatzberg wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index d91963e2d47f..394e0dd46b2e 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -92,6 +92,11 @@ struct scan_control {
> >       unsigned long   anon_cost;
> >       unsigned long   file_cost;
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > +     /* Swappiness value for proactive reclaim. Always use sc_swappiness()! */
> > +     int *proactive_swappiness;
> > +#endif
> > +
> >       /* Can active folios be deactivated as part of reclaim? */
> >  #define DEACTIVATE_ANON 1
> >  #define DEACTIVATE_FILE 2
> > @@ -227,6 +232,13 @@ static bool writeback_throttling_sane(struct scan_control *sc)
> >  #endif
> >       return false;
> >  }
> > +
> > +static int sc_swappiness(struct scan_control *sc, struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > +{
> > +     if (sc->proactive && sc->proactive_swappiness)
> > +             return *sc->proactive_swappiness;
> > +     return mem_cgroup_swappiness(memcg);
> > +}
>
> If you really want to make this sc->proactive bound then do not use
> CONFIG_MEMCG as sc->proactive is not guarded either.
>
> I do not think that sc->proactive check is really necessary. A pure NULL
> check is sufficient to have a valid and self evident code that is future
> proof. But TBH this is not the most important aspect of the patch to
> spend much more time discussing. Either go with sc->proactive but make
> it config space consistent or simply rely on NULL check (with or without
> MEMCG guard as both are valid options).

Now you see why I replied. That "hybrid" if statement is just neither
of what was suggested.