On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
No. It livelocked on me with almost all active pages exausted.
Misspoke.. I didn't try the two mixed. Rik's patch livelocked me.
Interesting. The semantics of my patch are practically the same
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Have you looked at free_pte()? I don't like that function, and it might
make a difference. There are several small nits with it:
snip
I _think_ the logic should be something along the lines of: freeing the
page amounts to a implied down-aging of
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Nigel Gamble wrote:
What about SCHED_YIELD and allocating during vm stress times?
snip
A well-written GUI should not be using SCHED_YIELD. If it is
I was refering to the gui (or other tasks) allocating memory during
vm stress periods, and running into the yield in
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Nigel Gamble wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Nigel Gamble wrote:
What about SCHED_YIELD and allocating during vm stress times?
snip
A well-written GUI should not be using SCHED_YIELD. If it is
I was refering
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:27:29PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
What about /proc/slabinfo? Notice that 2.4.4 (and couple of the 2.4.4-pre)
has a bug in prune_icache() that makes it underestimate the
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:58:52PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
Hmm... I'd say that you also have a leak in kmalloc()'ed stuff - something
in 1K--2K range. From your logs it looks like the thing never shrinks and
grows prettu fast...
Same goes
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
Pavel Machek writes:
It should ot break anything. gcc decides its bad to inline it, so it
does not inline it. Small code growth at worst. Compiler has right to
make your code bigger or slower, if it decides to do so.
Oh come on. The logical
Greetings,
While running a ktrace enabled kernel (IKD), I noticed many useless
context switches. The problem is that we continually pester kswapd/
kflushd at times when they can't do anything other than go back to
sleep. As you'll see below, we do this quite a bit under heavy load.
Before:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Zlatko,
I've read your patch to remove nr_async_pages limit while reading an
archive on the web. (I have to figure out why lkml is not being delivered
correctly to me...)
Quoting your message:
That artificial limit hurts both swap out and swap
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, YU,SAMMY (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
Hi,
Please CC me as I'm not subscribed on the list, thanks. Not sure if
this is appropriate forum, is there an existing tool/module for capturing
all the I/O requests such as:
If you look way back in the archives, you might find
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Zlatko,
I've read your patch to remove nr_async_pages limit while reading an
archive on the web. (I have to figure out why lkml is not being delivered
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Benjamin C.R. LaHaise wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Yes. If we start writing out sooner, we aren't stuck with pushing a
ton of IO all at once and can use prudent limits. Not only because of
potential allocation problems, but because our situation
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Richard Gooch wrote:
Jeff Garzik writes:
Richard Gooch wrote:
Jeff Garzik writes:
I'm sorry but this is a regression, plain and simple.
Previous versons of Linux have worked great on diskless workstations
with NO swap.
Swap is extra space
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Derek Glidden wrote:
After reading the messages to this list for the last couple of weeks and
playing around on my machine, I'm convinced that the VM system in 2.4 is
still severely broken.
...
Hi,
Can you try the patch below to see if it helps? If you watch
with
On 6 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Derek Glidden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem I reported is not that 2.4 uses huge amounts of swap but
that trying to recover that swap off of disk under 2.4 can leave the
machine in an entirely unresponsive state, while 2.2 handles
On 6 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you could confirm this by calling swapoff sometime other than at
reboot time. That might help. Say by running top on the console.
The thing goes comatose here too. SCHED_RR vmstat doesn't run
On 7 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you could confirm this by calling swapoff sometime other than at
reboot time. That might help. Say
On 7 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Does this improve the swapoff speed or just allow other programs to
run at the same time? If it is still slow under that kind of load it
would be interesting
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Bulent Abali wrote:
I happened to saw this one with debugger attached serial port.
The system was alive. I think I was watching the free page count and
it was decreasing very slowly may be couple pages per second. Bigger
the swap usage longer it takes to do swapoff.
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/linux-patches/vm-update-2.patch
Try this. I can't guarantee it's SMP-safe yet (I'm leaving the gurus to
that, but they haven't told me about any errors in the past hour so I'm
assuming they aren't going to find
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
I gave this a shot at my favorite vm beater test (make -j30 bzImage)
while testing some other stuff today.
Could you please explain what is good about this test? I understand that
it will stress the VM
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote:
Tobias == Tobias Ringstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tobias On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
I gave this a shot at my favorite vm beater test (make -j30 bzImage)
while testing some other stuff today.
Tobias Could you please explain what
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote:
Mike OK, riddle me this. If this test is a crummy test, just how is
Mike it that I was able to warn Rik in advance that when 2.4.5 was
Mike released, he should expect complaints? How did I _know_ that?
Mike The answer is that I fiddle with Rik's code
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
On the subject of Mike Galbraith's kernel compilation test, how much
physical RAM does he have for his machine, what type of CPU is it, and what
(approximate) type of device does he use for swap? I'll see if I can
partially duplicate his results at
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
I gave this a shot at my favorite vm beater test (make -j30 bzImage)
while testing some other stuff today
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, John Stoffel wrote:
More importantly, a *repeatable* set of tests is what is needed to
test the VM and get consistent results from run to run, so you can see
how your changes are impacting performance. The kernel compile
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
On the subject of Mike Galbraith's kernel compilation test, how much
physical RAM does he have for his machine, what type of CPU is it, and what
(approximate) type of device does he use for swap? I'll see if I can
partially duplicate his
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 5 Jun 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
Marcelo Tosatti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
Exactly. And when we reach a low watermark of memory, we start writting
out the anonymous memory.
Hm, my observations are a little bit different. I find
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, watermodem wrote:
Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, watermodem wrote:
David S. Miller wrote:
George Bonser writes:
There is, of course, one basic problem with that argument. While you can say
(and probably rightly so) that such a change
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote:
On Tuesday 29 May 2001 15:16, Alan Cox wrote:
a reasonably stable release until 2.2.12. I do not understand why
code with such serious reproducible problems is being introduced into
the even numbered kernels. What happened to the plan to use
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Tom Sightler wrote:
1. Transfer of the first 100-150MB is very fast (9.8MB/sec via 100Mb Ethernet,
close to wire speed). At this point Linux has yet to write the first byte to
disk. OK, this might be an exaggerated, but
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Roger Larsson wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2001 10:47, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2001 05:16, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Tom Sightler wrote:
Quoting Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
After the initial burst, the system should
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
[Request For Testers: please test this on your system...]
Hi,
the following patch makes use of the fact that refill_inactive()
now calls swap_out() before calling refill_inactive_scan() and
the fact that the inactive_dirty list is now reclaimed in
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
Of course FreeBSD has a block cursor. It was easy to program,
and it seems nice to the pot-smoking hippies out in Berkeley.
FreeBSD doesn't define standards. FreeBSD breaks standards.
(zombie creation, ps -ef, partition tables, pty allocation...)
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Saturday 16 June 2001 23:06, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
As a side note, the good old multisecond delay before bdflush kicks in
doesn't really make a lot of sense - when bandwidth is available the
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:05:10PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
It _juuust_ so happens that I was tinkering... what do you think of
something like the below? (and boy do I ever wonder what a certain
box doing slrn stuff thinks of it.. hint
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2001 12:05, Mike Galbraith wrote:
It _juuust_ so happens that I was tinkering... what do you think of
something like the below? (and boy do I ever wonder what a certain
box doing slrn stuff thinks of it.. hint hint;)
It's
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 10:37:21AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
Yes, this is expected behaviour with -ac14, -pre3 and newer.
If that means anything that doesn't happen here based on pre3.
It doesn't happen here either. Even with (ever so slightly
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, root wrote:
Regarding to the discussion on the swap size,
Recently, Rick van Riel posted a message that there is a bug
related to reclaiming the swap, and said that it is on his
TODO list.
That's fixed.
If I believe it, the current trouble we have regarding to the
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Steve Kieu wrote:
Just an information for you to compare, now I am
running the kernel compile from mandrake 80; version
2.4.3-20mdk on a
machine Intel celeron 400Mhz 128M RAM, i810 graphic
card (it will use some memory) ; runing together
Star Office 5.2, Netscape 4.77,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
2 4 2 77084 1524 18396 66904 0 1876 108 2220 2464 66079 198 1
^
Ok, I suspect that GFP_BUFFER allocations are fucking up here (they can't
block on IO, so they
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
2 4 2 77084 1524 18396 66904 0 1876 108 2220 2464 66079 198 1
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Tom Vier wrote:
i having some strange vm behavour with -ac17 that didn't happen with -ac14
(i haven't tried 15 or 16). it starts swapping even when i have hundreds of
megs of free ram. [...]
vmstat:
procs memoryswap io system
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
2 4 2 77084 1524 18396 66904 0 1876 108 2220 2464 66079 198 1
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
One thing that _could_ be done about looping allocations is to steal
a page from the clean list ignoring PageReferenced (if you have any).
That would be a very expensive 'rob Peter to pay Paul' trade
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Walter Hofmann wrote:
Ok, I managed to press SysRq-T this time ond got a trace for my hang.
Symbols are resolved by klog. If you prefer ksymopps please tell me, I
used klog because ksymopps seems to drop all lines without symbols.
Someone else might want that and/or a
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Tom Vier wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 09:06:42AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
It's not actually swapping unless you see IO (si/so). It's allocating
swap space, but won't send pages out to disk unless there's demand. One
if it's pre-allocation, why does it show up
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Martin Wilck wrote:
Hi,
the hack below in proc_file_read() fs/proc/generic.c (2.4.5)
irritates me:
If I do use start for a pointer into a memory area
allocated in read_proc, will it be always guaranteed
that (start page)?
If no, this will IMO lead to spuriously
Hi,
I stumbled onto a strange behavior which may or may not be related
to the stalls reported by a couple of people.
What I did, was to run bonnie in tmpfs to beat up the swap code a
bit. My setup is 128mb ram, and 256mb swap on /dev/hda2, single
spindle. All runs very smoothly (tremendous
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Martin Wilck wrote:
Hi,
Shhh ;-) Last time that hack was mentioned, someone wanted to _remove_
it. It's a very nice little hack to have around, and IKD uses it.
I am not saying it should be removed. But IMO it is a legitimate (if
not the originally intended) use
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
No, so have to unlock it also, if you return -ENOSPC.
So the correct fix seems to be:
--- linux/fs/ramfs/inode.c~ Wed Jan 31 22:02:16 2001
+++ linux/fs/ramfs/inode.cFri Feb 2 14:51:47 2001
@@ -174,7 +174,6 @@
inode-i_blocks +=
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 08:24:19PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
No, so have to unlock it also, if you return -ENOSPC.
So the correct fix seems to be:
[...]
This currently works for me (but using 2.4.0
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Where exactly do you see the leaks?
(I don't have a solid grip yet.. just starting to seek)
Heh. I figured this must be a nice defenseless little buglet
I could pick on (ramfs is pretty darn simple). Critter might
not be quite as defenseless as I
Hi,
With the patch below, ramfs will withstand make -j20 (binutils)
even while an iozone is running, and cp /dev/zero zero. These
fail as is. The problem seems to be in the way writepage() is
called.. ClearPageDirty(); writepage(). That screws up ramfs's
beancounting and makes it wipe pages
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Hi,
With the patch below...
However, tmpfs appears to cover the functionality provided by ramfs.
Are there any uses for ramfs which can't be handled by tmpfs?
The only thing I could think of was "what if you don't have a
swap device up and ru
Hi Christoph,
While testing Jens' loop-4 patch (and not being able to find
any way to lock it up), I stumbled onto a strange behavior.
I set up an interleaved swap with one swap partition, and one
swapfile in a loopback mounted reiserfs - populated tmpfs with
a kernel tree and did hefty make -j
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, christophe barbe wrote:
Ok it seems not important to have a nice boot process but each time you show a linux
machine to a M$ normal user (normal = not a programmer) his first reaction is
something like ""what are all these strange output lines?". And it's the first thing
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, christophe barbe wrote:
On ven, 09 fv 2001 08:03:14 Mike Galbraith wrote:
I hope that nothing like this is _ever_ integrated (and doubt I need
be concerned;). IMHO, hiding output from users arrogantly assumes
that they are too stupid/ignorant to have any use
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/alan/2.4/
2.4.1-ac7
o Rebalance the 2.4.1 VM (Rik van Riel)
| This should make things feel a lot faster especially
| on
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
This change makes my box swap madly under load.
Swapped out pages were not being counted in the flushing limitation.
Could you try the following
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
This change makes my box swap madly under load.
Swapped
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Something else I see while watching it run: MUCH more swapout than
swapin. Does that mean we're sending pages to swap only to find out
that we never need them again?
(numbers might be more descriptive)
user : 0:07:21.70 54.3% page
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Something else I see while watching it run: MUCH more swapout than
swapin. Does that mean we're sending pages to swap only to find out
that we never
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Something else I see while watching it run: MUCH more
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Jaswinder Singh wrote:
Can you point me to a cramfs generation procedure? (never used
cramfs.. know where the docs are, but could use a small time warp)
make ramdisk as you normally do and then compress it by gzip .
Ok, it's not a cramfs. If you disable cramfs,
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, C. D. Thompson-Walsh wrote:
[This sortof follows the format of the report form in REPORTING-BUGS]
1. I've found a consistent set of circumstances which will hang 2.4.x kernels
on my system.
2. If the system is put under load to the point where it swaps heavily
(If the initrd is other than PAGE_CACHE_SIZE blocksize)
Hi,
I found that merely having cramfs configured into the kernel
precludes mounting a ramdisk root after cramfs_read_super() has
been called. The problem is that cramfs changes the blocksize
of the ramdisk to PAGE_CACHE_SIZE after we've
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
There is nothing in either the VXI/Bus driver or the the Ethernet
driver that gives up the CPU, i.e., nobody calls schedule() in any
(known) path.
Check out IKD. Ktrace is wonderful for making such unknowns visible.
-Mike
-
To
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
A rather incomprehensible message, so let's flesh this out a bit.
Basically the problem occurs when patching linux/fs/reiserfs/namei.c It
can't find it, presumably due to an error in 2.4.1, where it appears to
me that reiserfs/ is located off of
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
A rather incomprehensible message, so let's flesh this out a bit.
Basically the problem occurs when patching linux/fs/reiserfs/namei.c It
can't find
On 22 Mar 2001, Kevin Buhr wrote:
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2.4.2.ac20.virgin 2.4.3-pre6
real11m0.708s 11m58.617s
user15m8.720s 7m29.970s
sys 1m31.410s 0m41.590s
It looks like ac20 is doing some double accounting.
[snip]
Mike, would you like
On 23 Mar 2001, Kevin Buhr wrote:
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike, would you like to try out the following (untested) patch against
vanilla ac20 to see if it does the trick?
Yes, that fixed it.
Great! Can you test one more configuration, please? I can't test
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Doug Ledford wrote:
[snip list of naughty behavior]
What was that you were saying about "should *never* happen"? Oh, and let's
not overlook the fact that it killed off mostly system daemons to start off
with while leaving the real culprits alone. Once it did get around
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
General thread comment:
To those who are griping, and obviously rightfully so, Rik has twice
stated on this list that he could use some help with VM auto-balancing.
The responses (visible on this list at least) was rather underwhelming.
I noted no
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Doug Ledford wrote:
Mike Galbraith wrote:
General thread comment:
To those who are griping, and obviously rightfully so, Rik has twice
stated on this list that he could use some help with VM auto-balancing.
The responses (visible on this list at least) was rather
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
While my post didn't give an exact formula, I was quite clear on the
fact that
the system is allowing the caches to overrun memory and cause oom problems.
Yes. A testcase would be good. It's not happening to everybody nor is
it happening
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
My patch already fixes OOM problems caused by overgrown caches/buffers, by
making sure OOM is not triggered until these buffers have been cannibalised
down to freepages.high. If balancing problems still exist, then they
should be retuned with
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:06 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
Mike Galbraith wrote:
Demystify what? The casual observer need only read either your attempt
at writing a scheduler, or my attempts at fixing the one we have, to see
that it was high time for someone with the necessary skills
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 05:40 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:29:01AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Yup, and progress _is_ happening now, quite rapidly.
Progress as in progress on Ingo's scheduler. I still don't know how we'd
decide when to replace the mainline scheduler
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 07:25 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Have you tried previous version with the fair-fork patch ? It might be
possible
that your workload is sensible to the fork()'s child getting much CPU upon
startup.
Dunno about that, but here's a possibly related datapoint. I reported
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 05:15 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:39:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
I'm a big fan of fairness, but I think it's a bit early to declare it
a mandatory feature. Bounded unfairness is probably something we can
agree on, ie if we decide to be
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 05:56 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 05:45:20AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 05:15 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
So on what basis would you allow unfairness? On the basis that it doesn't
seem to harm anyone? It doesn't seem
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 11:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Christoph Pfister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
backtrace:
#0 0xe410 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0x4a2510c6 in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from
/lib/libpthread.so.0
#2 0xb79fd1a8 in QWidget::setUpdatesEnabled ()
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 23:48 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
so my current impression is that we want per UID accounting to solve the
X problem, the kernel threads problem and the many-users problem, but
i'd not want to do it for threads just yet because for them there's not
really any apparent
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 10:41 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
Mike you were the stick.
(dirty job, somebody has to do it)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 08:52 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 23:48 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
so my current impression is that we want per UID accounting to solve the
X problem, the kernel threads problem and the many-users problem, but
i'd not want to do it for threads
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 09:09 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With a heavily reniced X (perfectly fine), that should indeed solve my
daily usage pattern nicely (always need godmode for shells, but not
for mozilla and ilk. 50/50 split automatic without
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 09:55 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 09:09 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With a heavily reniced X (perfectly fine), that should indeed solve my
daily
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 08:47 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
It's those who want X to have an unfair advantage that want it to do
something special.
I hope you're not lumping me in with those. If X + client had been
able to get their fair share and do so in the low latency manner they
need, I would
On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 10:08 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 08:54, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
On Saturday 21 April 2007 18:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
correct. Note that Willy reniced X back to 0 so it had no relevance on
his test. Also note that i pointed this change out in the
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 17:55 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Based on just this script as load I would say renice on X isn't a good
thing. Based on one small test, I would say that renice of X in
conjunction with heavy disk i/o and a single fast scrolling xterm (think
kernel compile) seems to
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 06:39 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 13:04 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 06:43:22AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 16:25 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
Mike, I've reverted this patch, and I don't see any references
P.S. forgot to include diagnostic log. Kobject c0644890 is the source
of my woes. Printk's come below WARN_ON(is_ipmi_si_kobj). Post-tinker
log is huge, and probably not interesting.
[ 30.397160] kobject ipmi_devintf: registering. parent: NULL, set: module
[ 30.404033] kobject_uevent_env
Hi Con,
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 14:57 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
What follows this email is a patch series for the latest version of the RSDL
cpu scheduler (ie v0.29). I have addressed all bugs that I am able to
reproduce in this version so if some people would be kind enough to test if
there
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 22:48 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
Thanks for the report. I'm assuming you're describing a single hyperthread P4
here in SMP mode so 2 logical cores. Can you elaborate on whether there is
any difference as to which cpu things are bound to as well? Can you also see
what
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 13:10 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Full patch for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-mm2-rsdl-0.29.patch
I'm seeing a cpu distribution problem running this on my P4 box
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 13:20 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
I'll boot up nosmp and report back
Hohum. nosmp doesn't boot (locks after ide [bla] IRQ 14), will
recompile UP in the A.M. and try again.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 13:10 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Full patch for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2:
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-mm2-rsdl-0.29.patch
I'm seeing a cpu distribution problem running this on my P4 box
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 18:48 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
Just a couple of questions;
The X/Gforce case; do they alternate cpu between them? By that I mean when
they're the only thing running does the cpu load summate to 1 or does it
summate to 2?
They're each on their own cpu (sibling).
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:29 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
I'll save you the trouble. I just checked myself and indeed the load is only
1. What this means is that although there are 2 tasks running, only one is
running at any time making a total load of 1. So, if we add two other tasks
that add
201 - 300 of 5828 matches
Mail list logo
