* Re: Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005211837310.627-100000@aslak.demon.co.uk>
@ 2000-05-21 19:11 ` Rik van Riel
2000-05-21 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2000-05-21 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lawrence Manning; +Cc: Linux Kernel, linux-mm, Linus Torvalds
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good
2000-05-21 19:11 ` Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good Rik van Riel
@ 2000-05-21 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-05-21 19:32 ` Quintela Carreira Juan J.
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2000-05-21 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rik van Riel; +Cc: Lawrence Manning, Linux Kernel, linux-mm
On Sun, 21 May 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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? ;)
What happened was really that I did a partial integration just to make it
easier to synchronize. I wanted to basically have pre9-2 + quintela's
patch, but I had too many emails to go through and too many changes of my
own in this area, so I made pre9-3 available so that others could help me
synchronize.
So on't despair, pre9-3 is definitely just a temporary mix of patches, and
is lacking the balancing that Quintela did.
Linus
--
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good
2000-05-21 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2000-05-21 19:32 ` Quintela Carreira Juan J.
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Quintela Carreira Juan J. @ 2000-05-21 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Rik van Riel, Lawrence Manning, Linux Kernel, linux-mm
>>>>> "linus" == Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
linus> On Sun, 21 May 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> 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? ;)
linus> What happened was really that I did a partial integration just to make it
linus> easier to synchronize. I wanted to basically have pre9-2 + quintela's
linus> patch, but I had too many emails to go through and too many changes of my
linus> own in this area, so I made pre9-3 available so that others could help me
linus> synchronize.
linus> So on't despair, pre9-3 is definitely just a temporary mix of patches, and
linus> is lacking the balancing that Quintela did.
Hi Linus
I am working in introducing my balancing changes in pre9-3, but I
am having problems with it. Now my machines get deadlocked and I
get a lot of Oopses. I am investigating on that. I get Oops
indeed in the pre9-3 vanilla kernel. I am studying it to write a
report of the situation.
My SMP machine is new, It has passed 6 hours of memtest86 memory
checker, but I don't know what to blame at the moment. I am
compiling for my old UP machines to test the differences.
Later, Juan.
PD.
<advertising>
Yes I am having deadlocks, Conectiva (http://www.conectiva.com.br/)and
my department in the University (http://carpanta.dc.fi.udc.es/)
have bought me an SMP machine.
</advertising>
--
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they
are different -- Larry McVoy
--
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-05-21 19:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005211837310.627-100000@aslak.demon.co.uk>
2000-05-21 19:11 ` Basic testing shows 2.3.99-pre9-3 bad, pre9-2 good Rik van Riel
2000-05-21 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-05-21 19:32 ` Quintela Carreira Juan J.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox