[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: Unresponiveness of 2.4.16

I've running 2.4.16 with this VM patch combined with your
2.4.15-pre7-low-latency patch from (it applied with a
little fuzz, no rejects). Is this a combination that you would feel
comfortable with?

So far it hasn't blown up on me, and in fact seems very quick and

Unless I hear a "No, don't do that!", I'm going to push this kernel into
testing for our video applications...


Torrey Hoffman

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Description:
> - Account for locked as well as dirty buffers when deciding
> to throttle writers.
> - Tweak VM to make it work the inactive list harder, before starting
> to evict pages or swap.
> - Change the elevator so that once a request's latency has
> expired, we can still perform merges in front of that
> request. But we no longer will insert new requests in
> front of that request.
> - Modify elevator so that new read requests do not have
> more than N write requests placed in front of them, where
> N is tunable per-device with `elvtune -b'.
> Theoretically, the last change needs significant alterations
> to the readhead code. But a rewrite of readhead made negligible
> difference (I wasn't able to trigger the failure scenario).
> Still crunching on this.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.062 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site