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: <1279776987.9785.2030.camel@nimitz>
Date:	Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:36:27 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Karl Rister <kmr@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 9/9] make kvm mmu shrinker more aggressive

On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 07:36 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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?

Still waiting on the folks that found this in the first place to
reproduce it and see if the patches help.  I'll go nudge them some more.

-- Dave

--
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/