Re: BUG: Slowdown on 3000 socket-machines tracked down

Christian Schmid
2005-06-08T02:28:03Z

This makes me seriously to despair.... the bug/lock/freeze is still there in 2.6.12rc6 ...

I am seriously offering 1000 dollars to the one who fixes this. (No Joke. I NEED that fixed. If you
want me to give that money to some organization, tell me.)

Please come back to me if you need more details or tell me what I can do to help you track this
down. Review all postings before please. Its a vm-lock because even opening a /proc file needs
around 20-30 seconds...

Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 05:53 +0100, Christian Schmid wrote:
>
>
>>>The other thing that worries me is your need for lower_zone_protection.
>>>I think this may be due to unbalanced highmem vs lowmem reclaim. It
>>>would be interesting to know if those patches I sent you improve this.
>>>They certainly improve reclaim balancing for me... but again I guess
>>>you'll be reluctant to do much experimentation :\
>>
>>I have tested your patch and unfortunately on 2.6.11 it didnt change anything :( I reported this
>>before, or do you mean something else? I am of course willing to test patches as I do not want to
>>stick with 2.6.10 forever.
>
>
> Well I hope that scheduler developments in progress will put future
> kernels at least on par with 2.6.10 again (and hopefully better).
>
> Yes you did report that my patch didn't help 2.6.11, but could those
> results have been influenced by the suboptimal HT scheduling? If so,
> I was interested in the results with HT turned off.
>
> Nick
>
>
> Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
> http://au.movies.yahoo.com
>
>