linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: Increase SWAP_CLUSTER

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: <20150713160319.b4cd79d4147679f2e7538cef@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:03:19 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: Increase SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX to batch TLB flushes

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 09:14:25 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:

> Overall, I would say that none of these workloads justify the patch on
> its own. Reducing IPIs further is nice but we got the bulk of the
> benefit from the two batching patches and after that other factors
> dominate. Based on the results I have, I'd be ok with the patch being
> dropped. It can be reconsidered for evaluation if someone complains
> about excessive IPIs again on reclaim intensive workloads.

OK, thanks.  The benefit is small and there is some risk of
unanticipated problems.  I think I'll park the patch in -mm for now and
will wait to see if something happens.

--
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/