linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Configurable reclaim batch size

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:	Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:56:15 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Configurable reclaim batch size

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter
<clameter@....com> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > It increases the lock hold times though. Otoh it might work out with the
> > lock placement.
> 
> Yeah may be good for NUMA.

Might, I'd just like a _little_ justification for an extra tunable.

> > Do you have any numbers that show this is worthwhile?
> 
> Tried to run AIM7 but the improvements are in the noise. I need a tests 
> that really does large memory allocation and stresses the LRU. I could 
> code something up but then Lee's patch addresses some of the same issues.
> Is there any standard test that shows LRU handling regressions?

hehe, I wish. I was just hoping you'd done this patch as a result of an
actual problem and not a hunch.
-
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/