linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8

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: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708040912480.5037@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 4 Aug 2007 09:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, miklos@...redi.hu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, neilb@...e.de, dgc@....com,
	tomoki.sekiyama.qu@...achi.com, nikita@...sterfs.com,
	trond.myklebust@....uio.no, yingchao.zhou@...il.com,
	richard@....demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8



On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> i forgot this entry:
> 
>  " We recently upgraded our office to gigabit Ethernet and got some big 
>    AMD64 / 3ware boxes for file and vmware servers... only to find them 
>    almost useless under any kind of real load. I've built some patched 
>    2.6.21.6 kernels (using the bdi throttling patch you mentioned) to 
>    see if our various Debian Etch boxes run better. So far my testing 
>    shows a *great* improvement over the stock Debian 2.6.18 kernel on 
>    our configurations. "

Well, quite frankly, there are other changes between 2.6.18 and 2.6.21 
that are more likely to be a big deal than Peter's patches. No offense to 
Peter, but we also cut the default dirty percentage by a factor of four in 
that timeframe, and that made a *huge* difference for some setups (and 
admittedly not so much on others ;)

> and bdi has been in -mm in the past i think, so we also know (to a 
> certain degree) that it does not hurt those workloads that are fine 
> either.

Hey, I'm not complaining. I think the code looks fine. I just want to make 
sure that it actually helps.

> [ my personal interest in this is the following regression: every time i
>   start a large kernel build with DEBUG_INFO on a quad-core 4GB RAM box,
>   i get up to 30 seconds complete pauses in Vim (and most other tasks),
>   during plain editing of the source code. (which happens when Vim tries
>   to write() to its swap/undo-file.) ]

So do the patches really end up helping your case? Or is this just why 
you're following it, and hoping they'll eventually do so?

		Linus
-
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/