Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 18 Sep 2001 01:14:36 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11 |
| |
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:55:46AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:33:15AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:53:10PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > Don't you agree that your code can introduce new stability bugs ? > > > > > > > > > > not anything that can corrupt randomly your hd. > > > > > > > > Sure, the old code did not corrupt hd's randomly, did it? > > > > > > > > Let me redo the question: Don't you think the old stinky and slow code was > > > > reasonably stable ? :) > > > > > > As said in the other email, just check 2.4 l-k reports of this week, > > > last week etc.., I've lots of private reports too. While for everybody > > > 2.2.19 is working fine. > > > > Have you seen any problem report which does not happen with anon intensive > > workloads ? > > of course, all the mysql/postgres db reports I got were non anon > intensive I assume, I assume they had enough ram, they all said 2.2 was > fine. > > > As far as I've noted, people usually report performance problems when > > running anon intensive workloads. For those cases, I'm pretty sure the > > swap_out() loop is the fuckup: the swap allocation code is really a _CRAP_ > > for the current VM. > > I don't think that was the case, 2.2 has the same swap_out loop.
Note that in 2.4 we scan pte's even if there is no free pages shortage, while in 2.2 we only scan pte's if there is a free page shortage.
- 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/
|  |