linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] page reclaim throttle take2

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, 27 Feb 2008 10:44:58 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] page reclaim throttle take2


On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 14:31 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:

> You mentioned CONFIG_NUM_RECLAIM_THREADS_PER_CPU and not
> CONFIG_NUM_RECLAIM_THREADS_PER_NODE. The advantage with syscalls is that even if
> we get the thing wrong, the system administrator has an alternative. Please look
> through the existing sysctl's and you'll see what I mean. What is wrong with
> providing the flexibility that comes with sysctl? We cannot possibly think of
> all situations and come up with the right answer for a heuristic. Why not come
> up with a default and let everyone use what works for them?

I agree with Balbir, just turn it into a sysctl, its easy enough to do,
and those who need it will thank you for it instead of curse you for
hard coding it.

--
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/