linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] mm, vmscan: add active list aging tracepoint

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:50:58 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] mm, vmscan: add active list aging tracepoint

On Wed 04-01-17 14:07:22, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:21:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > with other tracepoints but that can be helpful because you do not have
> > all the tracepoints enabled all the time. So unless you see this
> > particular thing as a road block I would rather keep it.
> 
> I didn't know how long this thread becomes lenghy. To me, it was no worth
> to discuss. I did best effot to explain my stand with valid points, I think
> and don't want to go infinite loop. If you don't agree still, separate
> the patch. One includes only necessary things with removing nr_scanned, which
> I am happy to ack it. Based upon it, add one more patch you want adding
> nr_scanned with your claim. I will reply that thread with my claim and
> let's keep an eye on it that whether maintainer will take it or not.

To be honest this is just not worth the effort and rather than
discussing further I will just drop the nr_scanned slthough I disagree
that your concerns regarding this _particular counter_ are really valid.

> If maintainer will take it, it's good indication which will represent
> we can add more extra tracepoint easily with "might be helpful with someone
> although it's redunant" so do not prevent others who want to do
> in the future.

no we do not work in a precedence system like that.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs