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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 23:10:08 +0900 From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, swap: Make VMA based swap readahead configurable On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 03:50:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 27-09-17 22:41:17, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 03:22:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > simply cannot disable swap readahead when page-cluster is 0? > > > > That's was what I want really but Huang want to use two readahead > > algorithms in parallel so he wanted to keep two separated disable > > knobs. > > If it breaks existing and documented behavior then it is a clear > regression and it should be fixed. I do not see why this should be > disputable at all. Indeed but Huang doesn't think so. He has thought it's not a regression. Frankly speaking, I'm really bored of discussing with it. https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=150526413319763&w=2 So I passed the decision to Andrew. http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<20170913014019.GB29422@...x> The config option idea is compromise approach although I don't like it and still believe it's simple clear *regression* so 0 page-cluster should keep the swap readahead disabled. > > Working around an issue with a config option sounds like the wrong way > to go because those who cannot do that unconditionally would still see a > regression. I absolutely agree but as I said, the discussion was not productive even though I did best effort to persuade. That's all for my side as contributor/reviewer. Decision is up to maintainer. ;-) Thanks for the opinion, Michal.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists