On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:35:32 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 02:59:41AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 04:45:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:00:59 +0300
> > > "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > H. Peter Anvin doesn't like huge zero page which sticks in memory forever
> > > > after the first allocation. Here's implementation of lockless refcounting
> > > > for huge zero page.
> > > >
> > > > We have two basic primitives: {get,put}_huge_zero_page(). They
> > > > manipulate reference counter.
> > > >
> > > > If counter is 0, get_huge_zero_page() allocates a new huge page and
> > > > takes two references: one for caller and one for shrinker. We free the
> > > > page only in shrinker callback if counter is 1 (only shrinker has the
> > > > reference).
> > > >
> > > > put_huge_zero_page() only decrements counter. Counter is never zero
> > > > in put_huge_zero_page() since shrinker holds on reference.
> > > >
> > > > Freeing huge zero page in shrinker callback helps to avoid frequent
> > > > allocate-free.
> > >
> > > I'd like more details on this please. The cost of freeing then
> > > reinstantiating that page is tremendous, because it has to be zeroed
> > > out again. If there is any way at all in which the kernel can be made
> > > to enter a high-frequency free/reinstantiate pattern then I expect the
> > > effects would be quite bad.
> > >
> > > Do we have sufficient mechanisms in there to prevent this from
> > > happening in all cases? If so, what are they, because I'm not seeing
> > > them?
> >
> > We only free huge zero page in shrinker callback if nobody in the system
> > uses it. Never on put_huge_zero_page(). Shrinker runs only under memory
> > pressure or if user asks (drop_caches).
> > Do you think we need an additional protection mechanism?
>
> Andrew?
>
Well, how hard is it to trigger the bad behavior? One can easily
create a situation in which that page's refcount frequently switches
from 0 to 1 and back again. And one can easily create a situation in
which the shrinkers are being called frequently. Run both at the same
time and what happens?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>