linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/27] Latest numa/core release, v16

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFzQYH4qW_Cw3aHPT0bxsiC_Q_ggy4YtfvapiMG7bR=FsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:02:13 -1000
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/27] Latest numa/core release, v16

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hugepages is a must for most forms of NUMA/HPC. This alone
> questions the relevance of most of your prior numa/core testing
> results. I now have to strongly dispute your other conclusions
> as well.

Ingo, stop doing this kind of crap.

Let's make it clear: if the NUMA patches continue to regress
performance for reasonable loads (and that very much includes "no
THP") then they won't be merged.

You seem to be in total denial. Every time Mel sends out results that
show that your patches MAKE PERFORMANCE WORSE you blame Mel, or blame
the load, and never seem to admit that performance got worse.

Stop it. That kind of "head-in-the-sand" behavior is not conducive to
good code, and I have absolutely *zero* interest in merging a branch
that has been tested with only your load on only your machine, and
performs better on that *one* load, and then regresses on other loads.

Seriously. If you can't make the non-THP case go faster, don't even
bother sending out the patches.

Similarly, if you cannot take performance results from others, don't
even bother sending out the patches. If all you care about is your own
special case, then keep the patches on your own machine, and stop
bothering others with your patches.

So stop ignoring the feedback, and stop shooting the messenger. Look
at the numbers, and admit that there is something that needs to be
fixed.

              Linus
--
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/