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: <20240906110419.2079-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Date: Fri,  6 Sep 2024 19:04:19 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
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 Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:29:41 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
> 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 against makes no sense to me because I know your patch is never able to
escape standing ovation.

> 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).
>
Because kswapd is responsible for watermark instead of high order pages,
compact does not justify proactive reclaim from the begining.