linux-kernel - Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

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: <2c0942db0707232218g4a742e92k925526c5cb962f3e@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:18:04 -0700
From:	"Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
To:	"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"ck list" <ck@....kolivas.org>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

On 7/23/07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Ray Lee wrote:
> > That said, I'm willing to run my day to day life through both a swap
> > prefetch kernel and a normal one. *However*, before I go through all
> > the work of instrumenting the damn thing, I'd really like Andrew (or
> > Linus) to lay out his acceptance criteria on the feature. Exactly what
> > *should* I be paying attention to? I've suggested keeping track of
> > process swapin delay total time, and comparing with and without. Is
> > that reasonable? Is it incomplete?
>
> Um, isn't it up to you?

Huh? I'm not Linus or Andrew, with the power to merge a patch to the
2.6 kernel, so I think that the answer to that is a really clear 'No.'

> 4. Does it make anything worse?  A lot or a little?  Rare corner
> cases, or a real world usage?  Again, numbers make the case most
> strongly.
>
> I can't say I've been following this particular feature very closely,
> but these are the fundamental questions that need to be dealt with in
> merging any significant change.  And as Nick says, historically point 4
> is very important in VM tuning changes, because "obvious" improvements
> have often ended up giving pathologically bad results on unexpected
> workloads.

Dude. My whole question was *what* numbers. Please go back and read it
all again. Maybe I was unclear, but I really don't think so.
-
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/