Messages in this thread |  | | From | Torrey Hoffman <> | Subject | RE: Unresponiveness of 2.4.16 | Date | Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:33:56 -0800 |
| |
I've running 2.4.16 with this VM patch combined with your 2.4.15-pre7-low-latency patch from www.zip.com.au. (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 responsive.
Unless I hear a "No, don't do that!", I'm going to push this kernel into testing for our video applications...
Thanks!
Torrey Hoffman torrey.hoffman@myrio.com
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 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/
|  |