| 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: <200906261437.16995.a1426z@gawab.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:37:16 +0300 From: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: stop balance_dirty_pages doing too much work Jens Axboe wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25 2009, Al Boldi wrote: > > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > The test case is random mmap writes to files that have been laid out > > > sequentially. So it's all seeks. The target drive is an SSD disk > > > though, so it doesn't matter a whole lot (it's a good SSD). > > > > Oh, SSD. What numbers do you get for normal disks? > > I haven't run this particular test on rotating storage. The type of > drive should not matter a lot, I'm mostly interested in comparing > vanilla and the writeback patches on identical workloads and storage. I think drive type matters a lot. Access strategy on drives with high seek delays differs from those with no seek delays. So it would probably be of interest to see this test run on rotating storage, unless the writeback patches are only meant for SSD? Thanks! -- Al -- 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