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]

Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:55:43 +0100
From:	"Frank A. Kingswood" <frank@...gswood-consulting.co.uk>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	ck@....kolivas.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject:  Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

Nick Piggin wrote:
> OK, this is where I start to worry. Swap prefetch AFAIKS doesn't fix
> the updatedb problem very well, because if updatedb has caused swapout
> then it has filled memory, and swap prefetch doesn't run unless there
> is free memory (not to mention that updatedb would have paged out other
> files as well).

It is *not* about updatedb. That is just a trivial case which people 
notice. Therefore fixing updatedb to be nicer, as was discussed at 
various points in this thread, is *not* the solution.
Most users are also *not*at*all* interested in kernel builds as a metric 
of system performance.

When I'm at work, I run a large, commercial, engineering application. 
While running, it takes most of the system memory (4GB and up), and it 
reads and writes very large files. Swap prefetch noticeably helps my 
desktop too. Can I measure it? Not sure. Can people on lkml fix the 
application? Certainly not.

Frank

-
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/