linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: get back a sensible upper limit

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: <CA+55aFz4D9fS1xt7fg0R9Bnngg+_TbNs3fSAaFwoV7eTeLfP5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:56:25 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	loberman@...hat.com, Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: get back a sensible upper limit

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> This patch brings back the old behavior of max_sane_readahead()

Yeah no.

There was a reason that code was killed. No way in hell are we
bringing back the insanities with node memory etc.

Also, we have never actually heard of anything sane that actualyl
depended on this. Last time this came up it was a made-up benchmark,
not an actual real load that cared.

Who can possibly care about this in real life?

                          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/