linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: vmscan: Split proactive reclaim statistics from direct reclaim statistics

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: <unm54ivbukzxasmab7u5r5uyn7evvmsmfzsd7zytrdfrgbt6r3@vasumbhdlyhm>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:59:18 +0100
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Hao Jia <jiahao.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org, 
	corbet@....net, mhocko@...nel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, 
	shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, muchun.song@...ux.dev, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	Hao Jia <jiahao1@...iang.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: vmscan: Split proactive reclaim statistics from
 direct reclaim statistics

On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 08:03:44PM +0800, Hao Jia <jiahao.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> > How silly is it to have multiple memory.reclaim writers?
> > Would it make sense to bind those statistics to each such a write(r)
> > instead of the aggregated totals?
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I didn't understand what your suggestion was conveying.

For instance one reclaimer for page cache and another for anon (in one
memcg):
  echo "1G swappiness=0" >memory.reclaim &
  echo "1G swappiness=200" >memory.reclaim

> Are you suggesting that the statistics for {pgscan, pgsteal}_{kswapd,
> direct, khugepaged} be merged into one?

Not more merging -- opposite, having separate stats (somewhere) for each
of the above reclaimers.

Michal

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)