Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 May 2002 18:32:00 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.19pre9aa1 |
| |
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 03:01:25AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > NOTE: this release is highly experimental, while it worked solid so far > it's not well tested yet, so please don't use in production > environments! (yet :) > The o1 scheduler integration will take a few weeks to settle and to > compile on all archs. I would suggest the big-iron folks to give this > kernel a spin, in particular for o1, shm-rmid fix, p4/pmd fix, > inode-leak fix. The only rejected feature is been the node-affine > allocations of per-cpu data structures in the numa-sched (matters only > for numa, but o1 is more sensible optimization for numa anyways). > Currently only x86 and alpha compiles and runs as expected. x86-64, > ia64, ppc, s390*, sparc64 doesn't compile yet. uml worst of all compiles > but it doesn't run correctly :), however it runs pretty well too, simply > it hangs sometime and you've to press a key in the terminal and then it > resumes as if nothing has happened.
I noticed what looked like missed wakeups in tty code in early 2.4.x ports of the O(1) scheduler, though I saw a somewhat different failure mode, that is, the terminal echo would remain one character behind forever (and if it happened again, more than one). I never got a real answer to this, unfortunately, as it appeared to go away after a certain revision of the scheduler. The failure mode you describe is slightly different, but perhaps related.
And thanks for looking into shm, I understand that area is a bit painful to work around, but fixes are certainly needed there.
Cheers, Bill - 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/
| |