Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:15:09 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 |
| |
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 05:58:48AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > One of the issues which seems to be affecting performance > > is the elevator starvation bug, though, so I'm not sure how > > You are contraddicting yourself. If you decrease the latency (so > if you fix the starvation) the global disk throughput can only > decrease.
Umm, where did I define "performance" as being the same as "global disk throughput" ??
You're imagining things again, and blaming me for it ;)
> > Once the elevator problem has been solved, we should be able > > I'm tired of you screwing up the VM and then complaining the > elevator. At least try to vary and choose something else to > complain.
There was a known starvation issue in the elevator, at least up to 2.4.0-test9-pre2. Until that problem is resolved, that is the logical thing to "blame" for the phenomenon that one process stalls while some others are still running at full speed.
Besides, if it was a VM issue, all allocators would stall. That did not happen, so VM wasn't the subsystem to blame in this case.
That said, there may be some interactivity issues with the VM, but with the elevator bug present, there is not much possibility to test for those.
About screwing up the VM subsystem, why didn't you help with the details? (remember that you agreed about the design in Ottawa)
regards,
Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |