From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CACC47E49 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:27:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D3F20663 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:27:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1571826473; bh=1pPpc5FTemHsQMH6mqz2Bz0LZ+qk3KBpFfGYrxTqgZw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=TuOmMC+FHFF8iQSPV3kW0a6lP5kJnIh8GeHtp2OURgTDTVS6ZAgGkFa0m90Ohcm0E DQLh5ncMEa7sLCxDs0B8sbAF0dY/Ux1UMSIqXech6gcibymVcOJCV7nr+p1DnxOYMm fVZq1nnhXlH6ZuTxK9NThwhlnN55VkYT4MndW9Bs= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404351AbfJWK1w (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:27:52 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f66.google.com ([209.85.221.66]:34113 "EHLO mail-wr1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1733253AbfJWK1w (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:27:52 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f66.google.com with SMTP id t16so16323457wrr.1 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 03:27:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WB7/i5uuRwyukis66Pg18JvXY3b0KiEPdqkT6P2Dv5I=; b=R7x6VqVuX7lVkmCO+K2fDj/vYXfgGxw/ejpqrsQfonR+8OMs7MVVN9Cdq2EpfLXNGU CmtSHbJOrdtfKjHA+LsqS5uh9v7KpfIkmPKxoBx1i5GkQ9ALmtop69IgQtIEPjV5gYhm /qD7fydWMTA3ZD2Y7HiW/wS9ka+zTm/IVor/16czzynERlOTjbdhStRfCrTnNO/kq/6y 3Ffvga9fWCsuxGrnBao5AAAxs0x2M+PwwsL84UPTiTtd+mU8sLUmI7nbEpWUIqpSLhe7 kPqNg6VHNIYAtqChxVoLux8YxID1CM25Sp+GMNSZr3df22ryRw1HOw1w2IxdosdlFirk ol2g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX2+EFXoyYiAVlc/9gOHGZrqjfUy2Dcc72z4Gl1ZLxm4/pIoasu OAICdWCeDVzqhLZtoZ1CUwQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxhanNo7P+GGioOseTpZYeqbU9Rk+Vt1EErh5XE4tuQ07F4oXbDPsz/GAFPh2pt4bzO8TH5xA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:9b9d:: with SMTP id d29mr7760523wrc.293.1571826469733; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 03:27:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tiehlicka.suse.cz (ip-37-188-173-3.eurotel.cz. [37.188.173.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u21sm18234122wmu.27.2019.10.23.03.27.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 03:27:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Michal Hocko To: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Waiman Long Cc: Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Vlastimil Babka , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Jann Horn , Song Liu , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Rafael Aquini , , LKML Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] mm/vmstat: Reduce zone lock hold time when reading /proc/pagetypeinfo Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:27:35 +0200 Message-Id: <20191023102737.32274-1-mhocko@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.20.1 In-Reply-To: <20191023095607.GE3016@techsingularity.net> References: <20191023095607.GE3016@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 23-10-19 10:56:08, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:04:22AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > So can we go with this to address the security aspect of this and have > > something trivial to backport. > > > > Yes. Ok, patch 1 in reply to this email. > > > > > There is a free_area structure associated with each page order. There > > > > > is also a nr_free count within the free_area for all the different > > > > > migration types combined. Tracking the number of free list entries > > > > > for each migration type will probably add some overhead to the fast > > > > > paths like moving pages from one migration type to another which may > > > > > not be desirable. > > > > > > > > Have you tried to measure that overhead? > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer this option not be taken. It would increase the cost of > > > watermark calculations which is a relatively fast path. > > > > Is the change for the wmark check going to require more than > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > > index c0b2e0306720..5d95313ba4a5 100644 > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > > @@ -3448,9 +3448,6 @@ bool __zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, unsigned int order, unsigned long mark, > > struct free_area *area = &z->free_area[o]; > > int mt; > > > > - if (!area->nr_free) > > - continue; > > - > > for (mt = 0; mt < MIGRATE_PCPTYPES; mt++) { > > if (!free_area_empty(area, mt)) > > return true; > > > > Is this really going to be visible in practice? Sure we are going to do > > more checks but most orders tend to have at least some memory in a > > reasonably balanced system and we can hardly expect an optimal > > allocation path on those that are not. > > > > You also have to iterate over them all later in the same function. The the > free counts are per migrate type then they would have to be iterated over > every time. > > Similarly, there would be multiple places where all the counters would > have to be iterated -- find_suitable_fallback, show_free_areas, > fast_isolate_freepages, fill_contig_page_info, zone_init_free_lists etc. > > It'd be a small cost but given that it's aimed at fixing a problem with > reading pagetypeinfo, is it really worth it? I don't think so. Fair enough. [...] > > As pointed out in other email. The problem with this patch is that it > > hasn't really removed the iteration over the whole free_list which is > > the primary problem. So I think that we should either consider this a > > non-issue and make it "admin knows this is potentially expensive" or do > > something like Andrew was suggesting if we do not want to change the > > nr_free accounting. > > > > Again, the cost is when reading a proc file. From what Andrew said, > the lock is necessary to safely walk the list but if anything. I would > be ok with limiting the length of the walk but honestly, I would also > be ok with simply deleting the proc file. The utility for debugging a > problem with it is limited now (it was more important when fragmentation > avoidance was first introduced) and there is little an admin can do with > the information. I can't remember the last time I asked for the contents > of the file when trying to debug a problem. There is a possibility that > someone will complain but I'm not aware of any utility that reads the > information and does something useful with it. In the unlikely event > something breaks, the file can be re-added with a limited walk. I went with a bound to the pages iteratred over in the free_list. See patch 2. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs