Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 9 Sep 2001 23:07:02 +0200 (CEST) | From | Arjan Filius <> | Subject | Re: Feedback on preemptible kernel patch |
| |
Hello Robert,
I tried 2.4.10-pre4+preempt+this-patch. Just booted up, and don't notice anything unusual.
On 9 Sep 2001, Robert Love wrote:
> Arjan, > > the following patch was written by Manfred Spraul to fix your highmem > bug. I haven't had a chance to go over it, but I would like it if you > could test it. It can't hurt. Patch it on top of the preempt patch and > enable CONFIG_PREEMPT, CONFIG_HIGHMEM, and CONFIG_HIGHMEM_DEBUG.
I found i do anly have a '#define HIGHMEM_DEBUG 1' in ./include/asm/highmem.h, which is default in 2.4.10-pre4.
> > let me know what happens...any relevant messages, etc. please pass > along. if it does work, id be curious if they are any slowdowns
Booting up, X, compiling kernel.. no problems. For speed, i DO notice other processes seem not to wait on that one programm which has much disk-access, so the (real) sluggish feeling has gone. This is however with the preempt patch, and the ctx_sw_ patch below seems only to affect stability in positive sense.
Can you advice what and how to test performance/latency? The grafics/statistics on the websites you named are impressive..
Greatings,
> > > --- highmem.h.prev Sun Sep 9 08:59:04 2001 > +++ highmem.h Sun Sep 9 09:00:07 2001 > @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ > if (page < highmem_start_page) > return page_address(page); > > + ctx_sw_off(); > idx = type + KM_TYPE_NR*smp_processor_id(); > vaddr = __fix_to_virt(FIX_KMAP_BEGIN + idx); > #if HIGHMEM_DEBUG > @@ -119,6 +120,7 @@ > pte_clear(kmap_pte-idx); > __flush_tlb_one(vaddr); > #endif > + ctx_sw_on(); > } > > #endif /* __KERNEL__ */ > > > >
-- Arjan Filius mailto:iafilius@xs4all.nl
- 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/
|  |