linux-kernel - Re: [00/17] Large Blocksize Support V3

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: <46305327.2000206@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:22:15 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...il.com>,
	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [00/17] Large Blocksize Support V3

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Right and we need to create series of other approaches that we then label
>>>"non-hack" to replace it. 
>>
>>I don't understand? We're talking about several utterly different designs
>>to approach these problems. You don't agree that one might be better than
>>another?
> 
> 
> What I seeing is a series of approaches being put into the kernel to 
> address this issue. We already have the lumpy reclaim there. Then we talk 
> about other fixed to basic page handling in the kernel to make it better.
> Now you want yet another fs layer. All of that could be taken care of by

No I don't want to add another fs layer.

> a defrag approach with larger pages. This has been done a number of times 
> before and actually the large page approach is a textbook example on how 
> to improve performance. It goes waaaay back.

I still don't think anti fragmentation or defragmentation are a good
approach, when you consider the alternatives.

It is like Linus on the page colouring issue. That goes back a looong
way too, but that doesn't mean it is the right way to do it.


>>>The code paths can stay the same. You can switch CONFIG_LARGE pages off
>>>if you do not want it and it is as it was.
>>
>>That isn't a good reason to merge something. If you don't have numbers then
>>that just seems incredible.
> 
> 
> Dont worry you will get numbers... Just did not have time to fix the bug 
> in this one since I had to take care of something else.

OK, I would like to see them. And also discussions of things like why
we shouldn't increase PAGE_SIZE instead.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/