linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: forbid lumpy-reclaim in shrink_active

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:	Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:14:40 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
CC:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: forbid lumpy-reclaim in shrink_active_list()

On 03/19/2012 04:05 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Rik van Riel wrote:

>> It was done that way, because Mel explained to me that deactivating
>> a whole chunk of active pages at once is a desired feature that makes
>> it more likely that a whole contiguous chunk of pages will eventually
>> reach the end of the inactive list.
>
> I'm rather sceptical about this: is there a test which demonstrates
> a useful effect of that kind?

I am somewhat sceptical too, but since lumpy reclaim is
due to be removed anyway, I did not bother to investigate
its behaviour in any detail :)

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/