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  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]
Date:   Fri, 14 Aug 2020 14:15:54 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <>
To:     ????????? <>
Cc:     'Ingo Molnar' <>,
        'Peter Zijlstra' <>,
        'Juri Lelli' <>,
        'Vincent Guittot' <>,
        'Dietmar Eggemann' <>,
        'Steven Rostedt' <>,
        'Ben Segall' <>,
        'linux-kernel' <>,
        '??????' <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/numa: fix bug in update_task_scan_period

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 11:51:54AM +0800, ????????? wrote:
> OK. Thanks for your advice and I'll use label instead.
> In the case of migration failures, if there are still new failures after
> clearing (meaning the node is still overloaded), the scanning period would
> be doubled, just like not using this patch. However, if the failures do not
> increase again, then the scanning period should be adjusted according to the
> following rules (i.e., ps and lr ratio). I believe this is the original
> design idea, right?

The original idea was to simply throttle scanning if the faults were
useless. Your patch is probably correct but I would still like to see
some evidence of the user-visible impact. What tests have you conducted
to make sure it behaves better (or is at least neutral in most cases)?

Mel Gorman

Powered by blists - more mailing lists