Re: [patch 4/6] mm: merge populate and nopage into fault (fixesnonlinear)

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 14:08 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > > The thing is, I don't think anybody who uses these things cares
> > > about any of the 'problems' you want to fix, do they? We are
> > > interested in dirty pages only for the correctness issue, rather
> > > than performance. Same as reclaim.
> > 
> > If so, we can just stick to the dead slow but correct 'scan the full
> > vma' page_mkclean() and nobody would ever trigger it.
> 
> Not if we restricted it to root and mlocked tmpfs. But then why
> wouldn't you just do it with the much more efficient msync walk,
> so that if root does want to do writeout via these things, it does
> not blow up?

This is all used on ram based filesystems right, they all have
BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK afaik, so page_mkclean will never get called
anyway. Mlock doesn't avoid getting page_mkclean called.

Those who use this on a 'real' filesystem will get hit in the face by a
linear scanning page_mkclean(), but AFAIK nobody does this anyway.

Restricting it to root for such filesystems is unwanted, that'd severely
handicap both UML and Oracle as I understand it (are there other users
of this feature around?)

msync() might never get called and then we're back with the old
behaviour where we can surprise the VM with a ton of dirty pages.

> > What is the DoS scenario wrt reclaim? We really ought to fix that if
> > real, those UML farms run on nothing but nonlinear reclaim I'd think.
> 
> I guess you can just increase the computational complexity of
> reclaim quite easily.

Right, on first glance it doesn't look to be too bad, but I should take
a closer look.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/