Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:12:13 -0700 From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [RFC v1 2/2] mm: SLUB Freelist randomization I thought the mix of slab_test & kernbench would show a diverse picture on perf data. Is there another test that you think would be useful? Thanks, Thomas On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote: > On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote: > >> Yes, I agree that it is not related to the changes. > > Could you please provide meaningful test data?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.