* 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