linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] Multigenerational LRU Framework

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: <CAHk-=whAOM+xQm9vMe33qf8X1LX2QQZ7RBgKe_KH2C3LB=6Jdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 17:41:58 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Michael Larabel <Michael@...haellarabel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, page-reclaim@...gle.com,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] Multigenerational LRU Framework

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 2:46 PM Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> So unless we want to eschew big mm changes entirely (we shouldn't!
> look at net or scheduling for how important big rewrites are to
> progress), I think we should be open to experimenting with new stuff.

So I personally think this is worth going with, partly simply due to
the reported improvements that have been measured.

But also to a large extent because the whole notion of doing
multi-generational LRU isn't exactly some wackadoodle crazy thing. We
already do active vs inactive, the whole multi-generational thing just
doesn't seem to be so "far out".

 But yes, numbers talk, and I get the feeling that we just need to try
it. Maybe not 5.17, but..

           Linus