| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080728200311.2218af4e@cuia.bos.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:03:11 -0400 From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org Subject: Re: PERF: performance tests with the split LRU VM in -mm On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:57:13 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:41:24 -0700 > Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > Andrew, what is your preference between: > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/15/465 > > > and > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=121683855132630&w=2 > > > > > > > Boy. They both seem rather hacky special-cases. But that doesn't mean > > that they're undesirable hacky special-cases. I guess the second one > > looks a bit more "algorithmic" and a bit less hacky-special-case. But > > it all depends on testing.. > > I prefer the second one, since it removes the + 1 magic (at least, > for the higher priorities), instead of adding new magic like the > other patch does. Btw, didn't you add that "+ 1" originally early on in the 2.6 VM? Do you remember its purpose? Does it still make sense to have that "+ 1" in the split LRU VM? Could we get away with just removing it unconditionally? -- All Rights Reversed -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists