On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Alok K. Dhir wrote:
>
> Are these page_launder improvements included in 2.4.6-pre3? Linus
> mentions "VM tuning has also happened" in the announcement - but there
> doesn't seem to be mention of it in his list of changes from -pre2...
Yes, it is.
-
To unsubscribe from
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Alok K. Dhir wrote:
> Are these page_launder improvements included in 2.4.6-pre3?
Please, don't send whole patches to the list just to ask a
question like this. But, since you sent the patch anyway,
why not read patch-2.4.6-pre3 to see if it's there?
Rik
--
Virtual memory
ED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rik van Riel
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 12:41 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PATCH] 2.4.6-pre2 page_launder() improvements
>
>
> [Request For Testers ... patch below]
>
> Hi,
>
> during
I ran some more tests yesterday with a little more RAM than last
time and Rik's kernel performed much better than the vanilla kernel
in the face of memory pressure when it was very busy. I could get
both kernels into situations where they were unresponsive but these
periods of time were much s
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 01:40:44AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> [Request For Testers ... patch below]
>
> Hi,
>
> during my holidays I've written the following patch (forward-ported
> to 2.4.6-pre2 and improved a tad today), which implements these
> improvements to page_launder():
>
> YMMV, ple
Ok, new test. Apache, no keepalives. 85 requests/sec for a 10K file
128MB of RAM Processor is UP 700MHz Intel
vanilla 2.4.6-pre2
After everything settles down I have about 230-250 apache process running.
about 4% of CPU in user and roughly 6% in system.
Top shows:
18:12:47 up 59 min, 2 user
My bad, I just looked at my notes again. It both went away and returned with
right around 500 processes.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Pleas
>
> That sounds like the machine just gets a working set
> larger than the amount of available memory. It should
> work better with eg. 96, 128 or more MBs of memory.
Now that I think about it a little more ... once I took it out of the
balancer and I got control back, I had over 500 apache kids
>
> That sounds like the machine just gets a working set
> larger than the amount of available memory. It should
> work better with eg. 96, 128 or more MBs of memory.
>
Right, I run them with 256M ... thought I would try to squeeze it a bit to
see what broke.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: sen
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, George Bonser wrote:
> I took it out of the load balancer and regained control in
> seconds. The 15 minute load average showed somewhere over 150
> with a bazillion apache processes. Even top -q would not update
> when I put it back into the balancer. The load average and
> n
>
> This patch has given excellent results on my laptop and my
> workstation here and seems to improve kernel behaviour in tests
> quite a bit. I can play mp3's unbuffered during moderate write
> loads or moderately heavy IO ;)
>
> YMMV, please test it. If it works great for everybody I'd like
> t
[Request For Testers ... patch below]
Hi,
during my holidays I've written the following patch (forward-ported
to 2.4.6-pre2 and improved a tad today), which implements these
improvements to page_launder():
1) don't "roll over" inactive_dirty pages to the back of the
list, but reclaim them in
12 matches
Mail list logo
