linux-kernel - Re: RFC: dirty

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]

Message-ID: <4BF53D8B.5090407@rsk.demon.co.uk>
Date:	Thu, 20 May 2010 14:47:55 +0100
From:	Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>
To:	Heinz Diehl <htd@...cy-poultry.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	lwoodman@...hat.com
Subject: Re: RFC: dirty_ratio back to 40%

On 20/05/10 13:29, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 20.05.2010, Larry Woodman wrote: 
> lwoodman@...hat.com
>> Increasing the dirty_ratio to 40% will regain the performance loss seen
>> in several benchmarks.  Whats everyone think about this???
> 
> These are tuneable via sysctl. What I have in my /etc/sysctl.conf is
> 
>  vm.dirty_ratio = 4
>  vm.dirty_background_ratio = 2
>  
> This writes back the data more often and frequently, thus preventing the
> system from long stalls. 
> 
> Works at least for me. AMD Quadcore, 8 GB RAM.
> 
get_dirty_limits uses a minimum vm_dirty_ratio of 5, so you can't set it
lower than that (unless you use vm_dirty_bytes).
But it's interesting that you find lowering the dirty_ratio helpful. Do
you have any benchmark results you can share?
regards
Richard
--
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/