linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3% regression

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]

Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:03:10 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc:     mgorman@...hsingularity.net, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        mhocko@...nel.org, ying.huang@...el.com, s.priebe@...fihost.ag,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, lkp@...org,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, kirill@...temov.name,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        zi.yan@...rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3% regression

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:40 PM Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> So ultimately we decided that the saner behavior that gives the least
> risk of regression for the short term, until we can do something
> better, was the one that is already applied upstream.

You're ignoring the fact that people *did* report things regressed.

That's the part I find unacceptable. You're saying "we picked
something that minimized regressions".

No it didn't. The regression is present and real, and is on a real
load, not a benchmark.

So that argument is clearly bogus.

I'm going to revert the commit since people apparently seem to be
ignoring this fundamental issue.

Real workloads regressed.  The regressions got reported. Ignoring that
isn't acceptable.

                    Linus