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  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:	Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:55:52 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <>
To:	Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Kernel Testers List <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	"Lin, Ming M" <>,
	Nick Piggin <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [Bug #12809] iozone regression with 2.6.29-rc6

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:27:08AM +0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.28.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
> > (either way).
> > 
> > 
> > Bug-Entry	:
> > Subject		: iozone regression with 2.6.29-rc6
> > Submitter	: Lin Ming <>
> > Date		: 2009-02-27 9:13 (16 days old)
> > First-Bad-Commit:;a=commit;h=1cf6e7d83bf334cc5916137862c920a97aabc018
> > References	:
> > Handled-By	: Wu Fengguang <>
> I suspect that I should just raise the default dirty limits. Wu reported 
> that it fixed the regression, and while he picked some rather high 
> percentages, I think we could certainly raise the rather aggressive 
> default ones. 
> After all, those default percentages were picked (a) with the old dirty 
> logic and (b) largely at random and (c) designed to be aggressive. In 
> particular, that (a) means that having fixed some of the dirty accounting, 
> maybe the real bug is now that it was always too aggressive, just hidden 
> by an accounting issue.

I second that.

1) The _real_ dirty threshold used to be large.
2) It is a _real_ regression. It impacts real user experiences.

So when introducing Nick's correct-dirty-accounting patch, we'd better
increase the dirty thresholds correspondingly.

> If we raised the default ratio from 5/10 to 10/20, what happens to the 
> iozone regression?

Maybe tomorrow. Ling Ming?

In general we should not cater the thresholds for one specific workload.
But this is a case of _regression_, and it would be better to raise the
bars above it.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists