linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/31] Move LRU page reclaim from zones to nodes v8

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:52:01 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] Move LRU page reclaim from zones to nodes v8

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:02:24AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:47:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > I had tested XFS with earlier releases and noticed no major problems
> > > so later releases tested only one filesystem.  Given the changes since,
> > > a retest is desirable. I've posted the current version of the series but
> > > I'll queue the tests to run over the weekend. They are quite time consuming
> > > to run unfortunately.
> > 
> > Understood. I'm not following the patchset all that closely, so I
> > didn' know you'd already tested XFS.
> > 
> 
> It was needed anyway. Not all of them completed over the weekend. In
> particular, the NUMA machine is taking its time because many of the
> workloads are scaled by memory size and it takes longer.
> 
> > > On the fsmark configuration, I configured the test to use 4K files
> > > instead of 0-sized files that normally would be used to stress inode
> > > creation/deletion. This is to have a mix of page cache and slab
> > > allocations. Shout if this does not suit your expectations.
> > 
> > Sounds fine. I usually limit that test to 10 million inodes - that's
> > my "10-4" test.
> > 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> I'm not going to go through most of the results in detail. The raw data
> is verbose and not necessarily useful in most cases.

Yup, numbers look pretty good and all my concerns have gone away.
Thanks for testing, Mel! :P

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com