Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] Latency Tracer, voluntary-preempt-2.6.8-rc4-O6 | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:10:59 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 18:32, Lee Revell wrote: > On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 15:30, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 07:19:58AM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > > > > I doubt SHA_CODE_SIZE will make a sufficient difference to avoid the > > > > latency problems. What we would need to do is to change the code so > > > > that the rekey operation in __check_and_rekey takes place in a > > > > workqueue. Say, something like this (warning, I haven't tested this > > > > patch; if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces): > > > > > > > > > > Tested, works for me. This should probably be pushed upstream, as well > > > as added to -P5, correct? Is there any disadvantage to doing it this > > > way? > > > > Great, I will be pushing this upstream very shortly. > > > > Hmm, turns out that this does not fix the problem: >
Here is another new one:
http://krustophenia.net/testresults.php?dataset=2.6.8.1-P4#/var/www/2.6.8.1-P4/kswapd_refill_inactive_zone_latency_trace.txt
Lee
- 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/
| |