Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:57:17 +0300 (IDT) | Subject | Re: [Bug 890] New: performance regression compared to 2.4.20 undertight RAM conditions | From | "Idan Sofer" <> |
| |
> The 2.4 VM's virtual scan has the effect of swapping out one process at a > time. 2.5's physical(ish) scan doesn't have that side-effect. Can you elaborate on the matter of virtual vs physical VM scan? Am I correct concluding this has to do with rmap? > To fix this properly we need load control: to identify when the system is > thrashing and to explicitly suspend chosen processes for a while, so other > processes can make decent progress. A couple of people are looking at > that; I'm not sure what stage it is at. If there is even an experimental patch then I will be happy to try it out, it's probably has a lesser effect when you enough ram, but currently that's the reason I still avoid using development kernels on that box.
-- Idan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |