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, 17 Sep 2001 11:36:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:35:51 -0400 Received: from ns.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.10]:55314 "HELO heather.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:35:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:35:55 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: Linus Torvalds Cc: ast@domdv.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9 Message-Id: <20010917173555.460c8ea3.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <200109162159.XAA11989@webserver.ithnet.com> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.6.2 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Very willing. Just send it to me, please. > > It's there as 2.4.10pre10, on ftp.kernel.org under "testing" now. > > However, note that it hasn't gotten any "tweaking", ie there's none of the > small changes that aging differences usually tend to need. I'm hoping > that's ok, as the new behaviour shouldn't be that different from the old > behaviour in most cases, and that the biggest differences _should_ be just > proper once-use things. > > But it would be interesting to hear which loads show markedly worse/better > behaviour. If any. Hello, I tried my usual test setup today with 2.4.10-pre10 and experienced the following: - cpu load goes pretty high (11-12 according to xosview)during several occasions, upto the point where you cannot even move the mouse. Compared to an once tested ac-version it is not _that_ nice. I have some problems cat'ing /proc/meminfo, too. I takes sometimes pretty long (minutes). - the meminfo shows me great difference to former versions in the balancing of inact_dirty and active. This pre10 tends to have a _lot_ more inact_dirty pages than active (compared to pre9 and before) in my test. I guess this is intended by this (used-once) patch. So take this as a hint, that your work performs as expected. - of course the alloc problems itself stayed the same. Regards, Stephan