linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: use-once cleanup

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]

Message-ID: <44C8C80F.8010705@mbligh.org>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:05:03 -0700
From:	"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, torvalds@...l.org, piggin@...erone.com.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: use-once cleanup


>>Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>This is yet another implementation of the PG_useonce cleanup spoken of
>>>during the VM summit.
>>>      
>>>
>>After getting bitten by rsync yet again, I guess it's time to insist
>>that this patch gets merged...
>>
>>Andrew, could you merge this?  Pretty please? ;)
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Guys, this is a performance patch, right?
>
>One which has no published performance testing results, right?
>
>It would be somewhat odd to merge it under these circumstances.
>
>And this applies to all of these
>hey-this-is-cool-but-i-didnt-bother-testing-it MM patches which people are
>throwing around.  This stuff is *hard*.  It has a bad tendency to cause
>nasty problems which only become known months after the code is merged.
>
>I shouldn't have to describe all this, but
>
>- Identify the workloads which it's supposed to improve, set up tests,
>  run tests, publish results.
>
>- Identify the workloads which it's expected to damage, set up tests, run
>  tests, publish results.
>
>- Identify workloads which aren't expected to be impacted, make a good
>  effort at demonstrating that they are not impacted.
>
>- Perform stability/stress testing, publish results.
>
>Writing the code is about 5% of the effort for this sort of thing.
>
>Yes, we can toss it in the tree and see what happens.  But it tends to be
>the case that unless someone does targetted testing such as the above,
>regressions simply aren't noticed for long periods of time.  <wonders which
>schmuck gets to do the legwork when people report problems>
>
>Just the (unchangelogged) changes to the when-to-call-mark_page_accessed()
>logic are a big deal.  Probably these should be a separate patch -
>separately changelogged, separately tested, separately justified.
>
>Performance testing is *everything* for this sort of patch and afaict none
>has been done, so it's as if it hadn't been written, no?
>-
>
>  
>
Rik / Peter ... I lost the original mail + patch, but if you put it
up on a URL somewhere, Andy would probably run it through the test
harness for at least some basic perf testing, if you ask him ;-)
Probably against mainline, not -mm, as -mm seems to have other
problems right now.

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/