linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/17] [RFC] soft and dynamic dirty throttling limits

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101106104211.GL13830@dastard>
Date:	Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:42:11 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] [RFC] soft and dynamic dirty throttling limits

On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 10:56:39PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:12:28PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 11:41:19AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > I'm feeling relatively good about the first 14 patches to do IO-less
> > > balance_dirty_pages() and larger writeback chunk size. I'll repost
> > > them separately as v2 after returning to Shanghai.
> > 
> > Going for as small as possible patchsets is a pretty good idea.  Just
> > getting the I/O less balance_dirty_pages on it's own would be a really
> > good start, as that's one of the really criticial pieces of
> > infrastructure that a lot of people are waiting for.  Getting it into
> > linux-mm/linux-next ASAP so that it gets a lot of testing would be
> > highly useful.
> 
> OK, I'll do a smaller IO-less balance_dirty_pages() patchset (it's
> good to know which part is the most relevant one, which is not always
> obvious by my limited field experiences), which will further reduce
> the possible risk of unexpected regressions.

Which is good given the recent history of writeback mods. :/

> Currently the -mm tree includes Greg's patchset "memcg: per cgroup
> dirty page accounting". I'm going to rebase my patches onto it,
> however I'd like to first make sure if Greg's patches are going to be
> pushed in the next merge window. I personally have no problem with
> that.  Andrew?

Well, I'd prefer that you provide a git tree that I can just pull
into my current working branch to test. Having to pull in a thousand
other changes to test your writeback changes makes it much harder
for me as I'd have to establish a new stable performance/behavioural
baseline before starting to analyse your series. If it's based on
mainline then I've already got that baseline....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/