From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 16:11:21 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lawrence Manning Cc: Linux Kernel , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linus Torvalds List-ID: 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/