* Re: Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005211837310.627-100000@aslak.demon.co.uk>
@ 2000-05-21 19:11 ` Rik van Riel
2000-05-21 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2000-05-21 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lawrence Manning; +Cc: Linux Kernel, linux-mm, Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 21 May 2000, Lawrence Manning wrote:
> That's my observation anyway. I did some dd and bonnie tests
> and got abismal results :-( Machine unusable during dd write
> etc. pre9-2 on the other hand is close to being as smooth as,
> say, 2.3.51. What happened? ;)
OK, I guess this means shrink_mmap() should not wait on
*every* locked buffer it runs into ;)
This will destroy both latency (we end up waiting for a
*lot* of buffers) and throughput (waiting on buffers could
interfere with request sorting if we're unlucky).
> I also should chip in to say that 2.2.15 is abit sick IO wise
> for me too.
I'm working on it :)
regards,
Rik
--
The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network
of people. That is its real strength.
Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good
2000-05-21 19:11 ` Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good Rik van Riel
@ 2000-05-21 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-05-21 19:32 ` Quintela Carreira Juan J.
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2000-05-21 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rik van Riel; +Cc: Lawrence Manning, Linux Kernel, linux-mm
On Sun, 21 May 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2000, Lawrence Manning wrote:
>
> > That's my observation anyway. I did some dd and bonnie tests
> > and got abismal results :-( Machine unusable during dd write
> > etc. pre9-2 on the other hand is close to being as smooth as,
> > say, 2.3.51. What happened? ;)
What happened was really that I did a partial integration just to make it
easier to synchronize. I wanted to basically have pre9-2 + quintela's
patch, but I had too many emails to go through and too many changes of my
own in this area, so I made pre9-3 available so that others could help me
synchronize.
So on't despair, pre9-3 is definitely just a temporary mix of patches, and
is lacking the balancing that Quintela did.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good
2000-05-21 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2000-05-21 19:32 ` Quintela Carreira Juan J.
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Quintela Carreira Juan J. @ 2000-05-21 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Rik van Riel, Lawrence Manning, Linux Kernel, linux-mm
>>>>> "linus" == Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
linus> On Sun, 21 May 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 May 2000, Lawrence Manning wrote:
>>
>> > That's my observation anyway. I did some dd and bonnie tests
>> > and got abismal results :-( Machine unusable during dd write
>> > etc. pre9-2 on the other hand is close to being as smooth as,
>> > say, 2.3.51. What happened? ;)
linus> What happened was really that I did a partial integration just to make it
linus> easier to synchronize. I wanted to basically have pre9-2 + quintela's
linus> patch, but I had too many emails to go through and too many changes of my
linus> own in this area, so I made pre9-3 available so that others could help me
linus> synchronize.
linus> So on't despair, pre9-3 is definitely just a temporary mix of patches, and
linus> is lacking the balancing that Quintela did.
Hi Linus
I am working in introducing my balancing changes in pre9-3, but I
am having problems with it. Now my machines get deadlocked and I
get a lot of Oopses. I am investigating on that. I get Oops
indeed in the pre9-3 vanilla kernel. I am studying it to write a
report of the situation.
My SMP machine is new, It has passed 6 hours of memtest86 memory
checker, but I don't know what to blame at the moment. I am
compiling for my old UP machines to test the differences.
Later, Juan.
PD.
<advertising>
Yes I am having deadlocks, Conectiva (http://www.conectiva.com.br/)and
my department in the University (http://carpanta.dc.fi.udc.es/)
have bought me an SMP machine.
</advertising>
--
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they
are different -- Larry McVoy
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-05-21 19:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005211837310.627-100000@aslak.demon.co.uk>
2000-05-21 19:11 ` Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good Rik van Riel
2000-05-21 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-05-21 19:32 ` Quintela Carreira Juan J.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.