linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4

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: <20160301144036.GI9461@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:40:36 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4

On Tue 01-03-16 14:38:46, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> the time increased but I haven't checked how stable the result is. 

And those results vary a lot (even when executed from the fresh boot)
as per my further testing. Sure it might be related to the virtual
environment but I do not think this particular test should be used for
the performance regression comparision.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs