linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/7] cpuset writeback throttling

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:	Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:08:26 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, Derek Fults <dfults@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] cpuset writeback throttling

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:23:10PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> This is the revised cpuset writeback throttling patchset posted to LKML 
> on Tuesday, October 27.
> 
> The comments from Peter Zijlstra have been addressed.  His concurrent 
> page cache patchset is not currently in -mm, so we can still serialize 
> updating a struct address_space's dirty_nodes on its tree_lock.  When his 
> patchset is merged, the patch at the end of this message can be used to 
> introduce the necessary synchronization.
> 
> This patchset applies nicely to 2.6.28-rc2-mm1 with the exception of the 
> first patch due to the alloc_inode() refactoring to inode_init_always() in
> e9110864c440736beb484c2c74dedc307168b14e from linux-next and additions to 
> include/linux/cpuset.h from 
> oom-print-triggering-tasks-cpuset-and-mems-allowed.patch (oops :).
> 
> Please consider this for inclusion in the -mm tree.
> 
> A simple way of testing this change is to create a large file that exceeds 
> the amount of memory allocated to a specific cpuset.  Then, mmap and 
> modify the large file (such as in the following program) while running a 
> latency sensitive task in a disjoint cpuset.  Notice the writeout 
> throttling that doesn't interfere with the latency sensitive task.

What sort of validation/regression testing has this been through?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/