> On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 10:57 +0800, Wu, Fengguang wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:27:04AM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 18:17 +0800, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:57:40AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > > > With commit 645747462435, pte referenced file page isn't activated in inactive
> > > > > > list scan. For VM_EXEC page, if it can't get a chance to active list, the
> > > > > > executable page protect loses its effect. We protect such page in inactive scan
> > > > > > here, now such page will be guaranteed cached in a full scan of active and
> > > > > > inactive list, which restores previous behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > This change was in the back of my head since the used-once detection
> > > > > was merged but there were never any regressions reported that would
> > > > > indicate a requirement for it.
> > > > The executable page protect is to improve responsibility. I would expect
> > > > it's hard for user to report such regression.
> > >
> > > Seems strange. 8cab4754d24a0f was introduced for fixing real world problem.
> > > So, I wonder why current people can't feel the same lag if it is.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Does this patch fix a problem you observed?
> > > > No, I haven't done test where Fengguang does in commit 8cab4754d24a0f.
> > >
> > > But, I am usually not against a number. If you will finished to test them I'm happy :)
> >
> > Yeah, it needs good numbers for adding such special case code.
> > I attached the scripts used for 8cab4754d24a0f, hope this helps.
> >
> > Note that the test-mmap-exec-prot.sh used /proc/sys/fs/suid_dumpable
> > as an indicator whether the extra logic is enabled. This is a convenient
> > trick I sometimes play with new code:
> >
> > + extern int suid_dumpable;
> > + if (suid_dumpable)
> > if ((vm_flags & VM_EXEC) && !PageAnon(page)) {
> > list_add(&page->lru, &l_active);
> > continue;
> ok, I'll test them, but might a little later, after a 7-day holiday.
>
> > > >
> > > > > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > > > @@ -608,8 +608,15 @@ static enum page_references page_check_references(struct page *page,
> > > > > > * quickly recovered.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > SetPageReferenced(page);
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > - if (referenced_page)
> > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > + * Identify pte referenced and file-backed pages and give them
> > > > > > + * one trip around the active list. So that executable code get
> > > > > > + * better chances to stay in memory under moderate memory
> > > > > > + * pressure. JVM can create lots of anon VM_EXEC pages, so we
> > > > > > + * ignore them here.
> > > > > > + if (referenced_page || ((vm_flags & VM_EXEC) &&
> > > > > > + page_is_file_cache(page)))
> > > > > > return PAGEREF_ACTIVATE;
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > PTE-referenced PageAnon() pages are activated unconditionally a few
> > > > > lines further up, so the page_is_file_cache() check filters only shmem
> > > > > pages. I doubt this was your intention...?
> > > > This is intented. the executable page protect is just to protect
> > > > executable file pages. please see 8cab4754d24a0f.
> > >
> > > 8cab4754d24a0f was using !PageAnon() but your one are using page_is_file_cache.
> > > 8cab4754d24a0f doesn't tell us the reason of the change, no?
> >
> > What if the executable file happen to be on tmpfs? The !PageAnon()
> > test also covers that case. The page_is_file_cache() test here seems
> > unnecessary. And it looks better to move the VM_EXEC test above the
> > SetPageReferenced() line to avoid possible side effects.
> oops, I should mention this commit 41e20983fe553 here. That commit
> changes it to page_is_file_cache()
Hmmm...
I think 41e20983fe553 is red herring fix. because 1) Even if all pages are
VM_EXEC, we don't have to make OOM anyway. tmpfs or not is not good
decision source. (note: On embedded, regular file-system can be smaller than tmpfs)
2) We've already fixed tmpfs used once page issue. (e9d6c15738 and
vmscantmpfs-treat-used-once-pages-on-tmpfs-as-used-once.patch in -mm)
Is the issue still exist?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>