linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] mm: introduce per-node proactive reclaim interface

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: <jw5skccxwi3u7i2ieb2l5gamekobbiankxbdzcxtctd636fh4v@wrfgdmkomiu3>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:29:41 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: yosryahmed@...gle.com, mhocko@...nel.org, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] mm: introduce per-node proactive reclaim interface

On Fri, 06 Sep 2024, Hillf Danton wrote:\n
>The proactive reclaim on the cmdline looks like waste of cpu cycles before
>the cases where kswapd fails to work are spotted. It is not correct to add
>it because you can type the code.

Are you against proactive reclaim altogether (ie: memcg) or this patch in
particular, which extends its availability?

The benefits of proactive reclaim are well documented, and the community has
been overall favorable towards it. This operation is not meant to be generally
used, but there are real latency benefits to be had which are completely
unrelated to watermarks. Similarly, we have 'compact' as an alternative to
kcompactd (which was once upon a time part of kswapd).