linux-kernel - Re: [UnifiedV4 00/16] The Unified slab allocator (V4)

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]

Date:	Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:56:47 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, npiggin@...nel.dk,
	yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [UnifiedV4 00/16] The Unified slab allocator (V4)

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Are there any stability problems left? Have you tried other benchmarks
> (e.g. hackbench, sysbench)? Can we merge the series in smaller
> batches? For example, if we leave out the NUMA parts in the first
> stage, do we expect to see performance regressions?

I have tried hackbench but the number seem to be unstable on my system.
There may be various small optimizations still left to be done.

You cannot merge this without the patches up to the patch that implements
alien caches without performance issues. If you leave out the NUMA parts
then !NUMA is of course fine.

I would suggest to merge the cleanups first for the next upstream
merge cycle and give this patchset at least a whole -next cycle before
upstream merge.

--
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/