linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Reclaim page capture v4

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,  3 Oct 2008 12:25:56 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	MinChan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Reclaim page capture v4

> > I tested your patch in my desktop.
> > The test is just kernel compile with single thread.
> > My system environment is as follows.
> > 
> > model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU    Q6600  @ 2.40GHz
> > MemTotal:        2065856 kB
> > 
> > When I tested vanilla, compile time is as follows.
> > 
> > 2433.53user 187.96system 42:05.99elapsed 103%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
> > 0maxresident)k
> > 588752inputs+4503408outputs (127major+55456246minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> > 
> > When I tested your patch, as follows.
> > 
> > 2489.63user 202.41system 44:47.71elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
> > 0maxresident)k
> > 538608inputs+4503928outputs (130major+55531561minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> > 
> > Regresstion almost is above 2 minutes.
> > Do you think It is a trivial?
> > 
> > I know your patch is good to allocate hugepage.
> > But, I think many users don't need it, including embedded system and
> > desktop users yet.
> > 
> > So I suggest you made it enable optionally.
> 
> Hmmm.  I would not expect to see any significant impact for this kind of
> workload as we should not be triggering capture for the lower order
> allocations at all.  Something screwey must be occuring.  I will go and
> reproduce this here and see if I can figure out just what causes this.

yup.
I also think this is significant regression.

if this is reproduced, that patch shouldn't be merged to -mm, IMHO.




--
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/