![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > Oh, and can we please have testcases? It's all very well to assert "it > sucks doing X and I fixed it" but it's a lot more useful if one can > distrubute testcases as well so others can evaluate the fix and can explore > alternative solutions. > > Andrea, this shmem problem is a case in point, please. > > > > in small machines the current 2.4 stock algo works just fine too, it's > > > only when the lru has the million pages queued that without my new vm > > > algo you'll do million swapouts before freeing the memleak^Wcache. > > > > Same for Arjan's O(1) VM. For machines in the single and low > > double digit number of gigabytes of memory either would work > > similarly well ... > > Case in point. We went round the O(1) page reclaim loop a year ago and I > was never able to obtain a testcase which demonstrated the problem on 2.4, > let alone on 2.6. > > I had previously found some workloads in which the 2.4 VM collapsed for > similar reasons and those were fixed with the rotate_reclaimable_page() > logic. Without testcases we will not be able to verify that anything else > needs doing. Btw, Andrew, are your testcases online somewhere? I heard once someone was going to collect VM tests to make a "official testing package", but that has never happened AFAIK. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||