linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mm] introduce reverse buddy concept to reduce buddy fragment

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2017 09:21:00 +0800
From:   zhouxianrong <zhouxianrong@...wei.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>, <mgorman@...e.de>,
        <l.stach@...gutronix.de>, <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        <hannes@...xchg.org>, <minchan@...nel.org>, <npiggin@...il.com>,
        <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, <gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com>,
        <luto@...nel.org>, <keescook@...omium.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <mingo@...nel.org>, <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        <ming.ling@...eadtrum.com>, <jack@...e.cz>,
        <ebru.akagunduz@...il.com>, <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        <Mi.Sophia.Wang@...wei.com>, <zhouxiyu@...wei.com>,
        <weidu.du@...wei.com>, <fanghua3@...wei.com>,
        <won.ho.park@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm] introduce reverse buddy concept to reduce buddy
 fragment

the test was done as follows:

1. the environment is android 7.0 and kernel is 4.1 and managed memory is 3.5GB
2. every 4s startup one apk, total 100 more apks need to startup
3. after finishing step 2, sample buddyinfo once and get the result

On 2017/7/3 23:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 03-07-17 20:02:16, zhouxianrong wrote:
> [...]
>> from above i think after applying the patch the result is better.
>
> You haven't described your testing methodology, nor the workload that was
> tested. As such this data is completely meaningless.
>