linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] readahead drop behind and size adjustment

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1185695073.6665.6.camel@perkele>
Date:	Sun, 29 Jul 2007 03:44:33 -0400
From:	Eric St-Laurent <ericstl34@...patico.ca>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...il.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ibm.com>,
	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] readahead drop behind and size adjustment

On Wed, 2007-25-07 at 17:09 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Eric St-Laurent wrote:
> > I test this on my main system, so patches with basic testing and
> > reasonable stability are preferred. I just want to avoid data corruption
> > bugs. FYI, I used to run the -rt tree most of the time.
> 
> OK here is one which just changes the rate that the active and inactive
> lists get scanned. Data corruption bugs should be minimal ;)
> 

Nick,

I have tried your patch with my test case, unfortunately it doesn't
help.

Numbers did vary a little bit more, and it seemed drop_caches was not
working as well as usual (used between the runs).

Also, overall the runs took about .1s more to complete.


Linux 2.6.23-rc1-nick PREEMPT x86_64

Base test:

1st run: 0m9.123s
2nd run: 0m3.565s
3rd run: 0m3.553s
4th run: 0m3.565s

Reading a large file test:

1st run: 0m9.146s
2nd run: 0m3.560s
`/tmp/large_file' -> `/dev/null'
3rd run: 0m19.759s
4th run: 0m3.515s

Copying (using cp) a large file test:

1st run: 0m9.085s
2nd run: 0m3.522s
`/tmp/large_file' -> `/tmp/large_file.copy'
3rd run: 0m9.977s
4th run: 0m3.518s


Anyway, what is the theory behind the patch?


- Eric


-
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/