linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 9/9] make kvm mmu shrinker more aggressive

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: <4C47CABC.1080801@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:36:12 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 9/9] make kvm mmu shrinker more aggressive

On 06/22/2010 07:32 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 11:11 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
>>> That changes a few things.  I bet all the contention we were seeing was
>>> just from nr_to_scan=0 calls and not from actual shrink operations.
>>> Perhaps we should just stop this set after patch 4.
>>>
>>>        
>> At the very least, we should re-measure things.
>>      
> Sure.  I'll go back to the folks that found this in the first place and
> see how these patches affect the contention we were seeing.
>    

Dave, how did those tests go?

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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/