linux-kernel - Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches

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]

Date:	Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:28:43 -0800
From:	"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>, npiggin@...e.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	jschopp@...tin.ibm.com, arjan@...radead.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related
 patches

>>> 32GB is pretty much the minimum size to reproduce some of these
>>> problems. Some workloads may need larger systems to easily trigger
>>> them.
>>
>> We can find a 32GB system here pretty easily to test things on if
>> need be.  Setting up large commercial databases is much harder.
> 
> That's my problem, too.
> 
> There does not seem to exist any single set of test cases that
> accurately predicts how the VM will behave with customer
> workloads.

Tracing might help? Showing Andrew traces of what happened in
production for the prev_priority change made it much easier to
demonstrate and explain the real problem ...

M.


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