From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262072AbVFHC2D (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:28:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262074AbVFHC2D (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:28:03 -0400 Received: from www.rapidforum.com ([80.237.244.2]:52876 "HELO rapidforum.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262072AbVFHC0s (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:26:48 -0400 Message-ID: <42A65759.8050507@rapidforum.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 04:26:33 +0200 From: Christian Schmid User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Piggin CC: Ben Greear , Andrew Morton , lkml Subject: Re: BUG: Slowdown on 3000 socket-machines tracked down References: <4229E805.3050105@rapidforum.com> <422BAAC6.6040705@candelatech.com> <422BB548.1020906@rapidforum.com> <422BC303.9060907@candelatech.com> <422BE33D.5080904@yahoo.com.au> <422C1D57.9040708@candelatech.com> <422C1EC0.8050106@yahoo.com.au> <422D468C.7060900@candelatech.com> <422DD5A3.7060202@rapidforum.com> <422F8A8A.8010606@candelatech.com> <422F8C58.4000809@rapidforum.com> <422F9259.2010003@candelatech.com> <422F93CE.3060403@rapidforum.com> <20050309211730.24b4fc93.akpm@osdl.org> <4231B95B.6020209@rapidforum.com> <4231ED18.2050804@candelatech.com> <4231F112.60403@rapidforum.com> <1110775215.5131.17.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <423518C7.10207@rapidforum.com> <1110776689.5131.37.camel@npiggin-nld.site> In-Reply-To: <1110776689.5131.37.camel@npiggin-nld.site> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > >