| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:27:43 +0000 From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Lumpy Reclaim V5 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:22:45 +0000 Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> wrote: > >> Following this email are three patches which represent the >> current state of the lumpy reclaim patches; collectively lumpy V5. > > So where do we stand with this now? Does it make anything get better? I am still working to fairly compare the various combinations. One of the problems is that if you push any reclaim algorithm to its physical limits you will get the same overall success rates. I think there is still some work to do refining lumpy, and reclaim in general. But I feel what we have now is pretty solid base for that. > I (continue to) think that if this is to be truly useful, we need some way > of using it from kswapd to keep a certain minimum number of order-1, > order-2, etc pages in the freelists. I think this is a key component of the mix and am just starting to play with this. I hope that this can provide improvements in the instantaneous availability of these higher orders and improve average latency. -apw - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists