From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 13 May 2002 12:29:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 13 May 2002 12:29:33 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:3056 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 13 May 2002 12:29:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] Linux 2.4.19-pre8-jam2 From: Robert Love To: rwhron@earthlink.net Cc: jamagallon@able.es, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020513074514.A25499@rushmore> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 13 May 2002 09:29:28 -0700 Message-Id: <1021307368.18800.2586.camel@summit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 04:45, rwhron@earthlink.net wrote: > > - Re-introduction of wake_up_sync to make pipes run fast again. No idea > > about this is useful or not, that is the point, to test it (Randy ?) > > Thanks, I was hoping someone would port that patch to a 2.4 kernel. > 2.5 kernels <= 2.5.15 aren't completing umount on the 4 way Xeon. > I will benchmark the latest jam on the big box next. > > http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html Is umount not completing somehow due to the lack of wake_up_sync ??? Fwiw, I am not sold that reintroducing wake_up_sync is worth it. The benchmark is synthetic and could very well not represent the general case in which the load balancer is capable of handling the scenario without the hackery of an explicit sync option. Robert Love