On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Dan Kegel wrote:
select() is usually limited to 1024 file descriptors
oh hey, this limit is only a libc limit these days. you can do this:
#define MY_FD_SETSIZE (16384)
typedef struct {
__fd_mask __fds_bits[MY_FD_SETSIZE / __NFDBITS];
} my_fd_set;
#define
a few comments...
- localhost is a meaningless benchmark. it's useful to catch some low
hanging fruit, but it really doesn't help in the long run.
- contrast the max connection times between kHTTPd and Boa. if that 9
second maximum for kHTTPd is any indication of its latency performance on
a
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Jonathan Thackray wrote:
(Linux, FreeBSD, HP-UX, AIX, Tru64). The next cool feature to add to
Linux is sendpath(), which does the open() before the sendfile()
all combined into one system call.
how would sendpath() construct the Content-Length in the HTTP header?
it's
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Jonathan Thackray wrote:
TCP_CORK is useful for FAR more than just sendfile() headers and
footers. it's arguably the most correct way to write server code.
Agreed -- the hard-coded Nagle algorithm makes no sense these days.
hey, actually a little more thinking this
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
just for kicks i've implemented sendpath() support.
_syscall4 (int, sendpath, int, out_fd, char *, path, off_t *, off, size_t, size)
hey so how do you implement transmit timeouts with sendpath
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
But even user-space code could use 'native files', via the following, safe
mechanizm:
so here's an alternative to ingo's proposal which i think solves some of
the other objections raised. it's something i've proposed in the past
under the name
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, David L. Parsley wrote:
Felix von Leitner wrote:
close (0);
close (1);
close (2);
open ("/dev/console", O_RDWR);
dup ();
dup ();
So it's not actually part of POSIX, it's just to get around fixing
legacy code? ;-)
it's part of POSIX.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Rick Jones wrote:
The fact that I understand _why_ it is done that way doesn't mean that I
don't think it's a hack. It doesn't allow you to sendfile multiple files
etc without having nagle boundaries, and the header/trailer stuff really
isn't a generic solution.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Rick Jones wrote:
actually the problem isn't nagle... nagle needs to be turned off for
efficient servers anyhow.
i'm not sure I follow that. could you expand on that a bit?
the problem which caused us to disable nagle in apache is documented in
this paper
(because they're being pretty ambitious);
and nobody has decided to just forge forward and layer HTTP/1.1 on top of
WebMUX yet. (the subversive in me wants to see WebMUX patches for apache,
squid, and mozilla ;)
-dean
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Rick Jones w
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Zach Brown wrote:
We set TCP_CORK on the socket we handed to external programs that were
being run via 'site exec' in an ftp server. It resulted in much nicer
packets being spit out, especially in the 'ls' case where it likes to
write() on really goofy boundaries.
huh -- i think with this apache could solve the problem documented in
heidemann's paper while also leaving nagle on... which would solve the CGI
dribbler vs. bulk problem i just posted about.
at the end of a request apache would check first if it can get another
request without blocking; if it
nly i had a portable version of this :)
-dean
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
huh -- i think with this apache could solve the problem documented in
heidemann's paper while also leaving nagle on... which would solve the CGI
dribbler vs. bulk problem i just posted about.
at the end of a
On 20 Jan 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (dean gaudet) wrote on 18.01.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
i'm pretty sure the actual use of pipelining is pretty disappointing.
the work i did in apache preceded the widespread use of HTTP/1.1 and we
What widespread use of HTTP/1.1
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
o fixed race in wake-one LIFO in accept(2). Apache must be compiled with
-DSINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT to take advantage of that.
00_wake-one-4
Backport 2.4 waitqueues and in turn fixes an hanging condition in accept(2).
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:33:05PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
apache since 1.3.15 has defined SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT ...
That's definitely a good thing.
hmm, i'm not so sure -- 1.3.x is our stable release, and it sounds like
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 04:03:57PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Is there a reason for the task structure to be at the bottom rather than the
top of these two pages ?
This way you save one addition for every current access; which adds to
quite a few
On Sat, 26 May 2001, Keith Owens wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2001 08:31:24 -0700 (PDT),
dean gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
another possibility for a debugging mode for the kernel would be to hack
gcc to emit something like the following in the prologue of every function
(after the frame
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
At 8:45 AM -0700 2001-05-25, dean gaudet wrote:
i think it really depends on how you use current -- here's an alternative
usage which can fold the extra addition into the structure offset
calculations, and moves the task struct to the top
if you go to opengroup.org you can read the single-unix standard for
free... you need to register though. (it's not quite the same as
POSIX...)
-dean
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there somewhere I can download the collection of POSIX standards docs
free of charge?
;-)
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
It's not faster than card-card DMA, which falls out naturally from my
zero-copy proposal :-)
We already support card-card DMA for routing with fastrouting
..but not for user space proxies which was the above's context.
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
But there is no Copyright license in patch code.
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote:
I was under the understanding a "patch" to something GPL, means
the "patch" is also GPL.
when IBM started working with the apache group their lawyers did a
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote:
If even one file in the kernel source gets modified, then the entire
patch is GPL via the GPL assimilation rules in COPYING - regardless of
what the author of the patch says.
IANAL.
i know this is what the GPL wants, but AFAIK it's never been tested
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Yeah. Maybe we fixed truncate, and maybe we didn't. I've thought that we
fixed it now several times, and I was always wrong.
obpainintheass: haven't you anti-debugger-religion folks been claiming
that if you don't have a debugger you're forced to
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Bill Wendling wrote:
Also sprach dean gaudet:
} On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
}
} Yeah. Maybe we fixed truncate, and maybe we didn't. I've thought that we
} fixed it now several times, and I was always wrong.
}
} obpainintheass: haven't you anti
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Brian Craft wrote:
In the code below, I removed the shutdown() and added the block
after do_scan() to eliminate the RST. The read() never finds any data.
If there's no data pending, why does read() have any affect?
EOF is considered pending data... and has to be read.
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
Note that two subsequent calls to gettimeofday() must not return the
same time even if your CPU runs infinitely fast. I haven't seen any
kernel in the past few years that fails this test.
i don't see any requirement for this in SuS.
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
Pathological shutdown pattern: assuming scatter-gather is not allowed
(for IDE), and a 20ms full-stroke seek, write sectors at alternately
opposite ends of the disk, working inwards until the buffer is full.
512-byte sectors, 2MB of them, is 4000
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
i assume you meant to time the xlog.c program? (or did i miss another
program on the thread?)
i've an IBM-DJSA-210 (travelstar 10GB, 5411rpm) which appears to do
*something* with the write cache flag -- it gets 0.10s elapsed real time
in default
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Andrew Morton wrote:
Dean,
neither flock() nor fcntl() serialisation are effective
on linux 2.2 or linux 2.4.
i have to admit the last time i timed any of the methods on linux was in
2.0.x days. thanks for the updated data!
For kernel 2.2 I recommend that Apache
: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:23:57 -0800 (PST)
From: dean gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
apache is about correctness first, and performance second.
Which is why we say it is "incorrect" for apache to try
and work around kernel performance problems. :-)))
Later,
David S. Mill
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
sysv semaphores have a very unfortunate negative feature -- if the admin
kill -9's the server (impatient admins do this all the time) then you end
up leaving a semaphore lying around. sysvsem don't have the usual unix
Umm they have SEM_UNDO. Its a
i've always been curious why none of the crash dump patches are default.
an oops dumper alone would seem to be most useful. (i know anything more
would be unacceptable 'cause linus isn't into debuggers ;)
-dean
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Miles Lane wrote:
Try reading:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 06:50:18PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
Your cgi will keep the other CPU occupied, or run two of them. thttpd has
superb scaling properties compared to say apache.
I think with 8 CPUs and 8 NICs (usual benchmark setup) you
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
Having proper kiobuf support would make it possible to, for example,
do zerocopy network-disk data transfers and lots of other things.
i used to think that this is useful, but these days it isnt.
this seems
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:56:33 -0800 (PST)
From: dean gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is NFS receive single copy today?
With the zerocopy patches, NFS client receive is "single cpu copy" if
that's what you mean.
yeah sorry, i mea
Semantic issues aside, since Apache does the test I mentionned earlier
to determine child status and since it could be misled, should this
feature be turned off?
Or made smarter yes
i'm scratching my head wondering what i was thinking when i wrote that
code. the specific thing the
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't mean this to sound like a rant. It's just that I can't possibly
ascertain why someone in their right mind would want any behaviour
different than SA_RESTART.
study apache 1.3's child_main code, you'll see an example of EINTR in use.
it's
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Please use unserialized accept() _always_, because we can fix that.
i can unserialise the single socket case, but the multiple socket case is
not so simple.
the executive summary is that when you've got multiple sockets you have to
use select().
the numbers didn't look that bad for the small numbers of concurrent
clients on 2.2... a few % slower without the serialisation. compared to
orders of magnitude slower with large numbers of concurrent client.
oh, someone reminded me of the other reason sysvsems suck: a cgi can grab
the
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, George Talbot wrote:
I respectfully disagree that programs which don't surround some of the
most common system calls with
do
{
rv = __some_system_call__(...);
} while (rv == -1 errno == EINTR);
welcome to Unix. this is how it is, and
can't find the original.
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg13584.html
Initiated by a post from (iirc) Dean Gaudet, we found out that
gettimeofday was one particular system call in the Apache fast path that
couldn't be optimized well, or moved out of the fast path
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
I can disable header caching and see what happens, I'll add an option
for this in the next X15 release.
heh, well to be honest, i'd put the (permanent) caching of the Date header
into the very slimy, benchmark-only trick category. (right up there
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Fabio Riccardi wrote:
Ok I fixed it, the header date timestamp is updated with every request.
Performance doesn't seem to have suffered significantly (less than 1%).
rad!
BTW: Don't call me slime, I wasn't trying to cheat, I just didn't know that
the date stamp was
um, presumably this new magic page won't eliminate the old syscall entry
points. so just use those for UML.
-dean
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
That means that for fooling closed-source statically-linked binary,
If they are using glibc then you have the right to the
On Sat, 5 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
How difficult is it to compose netfilter rules that do this?
what's the performance impact of doing that?
i've got multiple ip networks on the same gigabit link... i'm pretty
happy with this tiny patch i've posted before, which is not on any
also -- isn't it kind of wrong for arp to respond with addresses from
other interfaces?
what if ip_forward is 0? or if there's some other sort of routing policy
in effect?
-dean
On Sat, 5 May 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
i've got multiple ip networks on the same gigabit link...
p.s
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
documented so far) detailed description of the newly
implemented zero-copy mechanisms in the network-stack.
We are interested in how to use it (changed network-API?)
and also in the internal architecture.
It is built around sendfile. Trying to do
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
when the hardware I/O is used. This shows that the network code, alone,
cannot be improved very much to provide an improvement in throughput.
doesn't your analysis assume that we've got nothing else interesting to do
while doing the network i/o?
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
When we get to media that can sink data as fast as we can generate
them (it), then we have to worry about memory copy speed. However,
these new devices are actually an IP subsystem. They generate and
receive entire datagrams. To fully utilize
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Dr S.M. Huen wrote:
If you can afford 4GB RAM, you certainly can afford 8GB swap.
this is a completely crap argument.
you should study the economics of managing a farm of thousands of machines
some day.
when you do this, you'll also learn to consider the power
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote:
This is completely bogus. I am not saying that I can't afford the swap.
What I am saying is that it is completely broken to require this amount
of swap given the boundaries of efficient use.
Funny. I can
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Dan Podeanu wrote:
Is there any logical reason why if, given fd is a connected, AF_INET,
SOCK_STREAM socket, and one does a write(fd, buffer, len); close(fd);
to the peer, over a rather slow network (read modem, satelite link, etc),
the data gets lost (the remote
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Jan Hudec wrote:
Btw: can the aplication somehow ask the tcp/ip stack what was actualy acked?
(ie. how many bytes were acked).
no, but it's not necessarily a useful number anyhow -- because it's
possible that the remote end ACKd bytes but the ACK never arrives. so you
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
Btw: can the aplication somehow ask the tcp/ip stack what was
actualy acked?
(ie. how many bytes were acked).
no, but it's not necessarily a useful number anyhow -- because it's
possible that the remote end ACKd bytes but the ACK never
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
Btw: can the aplication somehow ask the tcp/ip stack what was
actualy acked?
(ie. how many bytes were acked).
no, but it's not necessarily a useful number anyhow -- because it's
possible that the remote end ACKd bytes but the
this looks to be a problem going back all the way to at least 2.2.
if you've got 512Mb of RAM you end up with a dentry cache of order 7 --
65536 entries.
this results in a D_HASHBITS of 16. if you look at d_hash it contains
this code:
hash = hash ^ (hash D_HASHBITS) ^ (hash
this appears to occur with both 2.2.16 and 2.4.1.
server:
eth0 is 192.168.250.11 netmask 255.255.255.0
eth1 is 192.168.251.11 netmask 255.255.255.0
they're both connected to the same switch.
client:
eth0 is 192.168.251.11 netmask 255.255.255.0
connected to the same switch as both of
oops typo.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
this appears to occur with both 2.2.16 and 2.4.1.
server:
eth0 is 192.168.250.11 netmask 255.255.255.0
eth1 is 192.168.251.11 netmask 255.255.255.0
they're both connected to the same switch.
client:
eth0 is 192.168.251.11 netmask
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
responses come back from both eth0 and eth1, listing each of their
respective MAC addresses... it's essentially a race condition at this
point as to whether i'll get the right MAC address. ("right&q
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Eric Weigle wrote:
Ok, I was ignorant of the arp filter functionality in 2.2. I found an old
(probably painfully out-of-date) posting the patch Andi Kleen was referring to
in the archive, but I've not used it.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Andy wrote:
If the scroll lock is on and there is a bunch of console output, the machine
will eventually stop responding to the network, until scroll lock is turned
off (at sometimes that doesn't even help).
Easy test:
hit scroll lock
do a few echo t
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
--- Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 4 2007 19:37, Marc Perkel wrote:
-b internal -- seems like a good idea to speed
up
resynchronization.
I'm trying to figure out what the default is.
-b none, meaning the
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cached requires the cache line to be read first before you can write
it.
nonsense, and you should know it. It is perfectly possible to construct
fully written cachelines, without reading the cacheline
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, dean gaudet wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cached requires the cache line to be read first before you can write
it.
nonsense, and you should know it. It is perfectly possible to construct
fully
if i boot an x86 64-bit 2.6.24-rc7 kernel with nosmp, maxcpus=0 or 1 it
still disables TSC :)
Marking TSC unstable due to TSCs unsynchronized
this is an opteron 2xx box which does have two cpus and no clock-divide in
halt or cpufreq enabled so TSC should be fine with only one cpu.
pretty sure
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
Later a syscall might be needed with event multiplexing, but that seems
more like a far away non essential feature.
actually multiplexing is the main feature i am in need of. there are an
insufficient number of counters (even on k8 with 4 counters) to do
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote:
dean gaudet writes:
actually multiplexing is the main feature i am in need of. there are an
insufficient number of counters (even on k8 with 4 counters) to do
complete stall accounting or to get a general overview of L1d/L1i/L2 cache
hit
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
dean gaudet wrote:
honestly i think there should be a per-task flag which indicates whether
fds are by default F_CLOEXEC or not. my reason: third party libraries.
Only somebody who thinks exclusively about applications as opposed to
runtimes
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
I didn't see a clear list.
- cross platform extensible API for configuring perf counters
- support for multiplexed counters
- support for virtualized 64-bit counters
- support for PC and call graph sampling at specific intervals
- support for reading
you know... i understand the need for FD_CLOEXEC -- in fact i tried
petitioning for CLOEXEC options to all the fd creating syscalls something
like 7 years ago when i was banging my head against the wall trying to
figure out how to thread apache... but even still i'm not convinced that
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do see a problem, because some readers will take your example as a
reference, as it will probably sit in a page that
google^Wsearch_engines will bring at the top of search results for
next ten years
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, dean gaudet wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
+__cpuinit void ptrace_bts_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
+{
+ switch (c-x86) {
+ case 0x6:
+ switch (c-x86_model) {
+#ifdef __i386__
+ case 0xD:
+ case
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
+__cpuinit void ptrace_bts_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
+{
+ switch (c-x86) {
+ case 0x6:
+ switch (c-x86_model) {
+#ifdef __i386__
+ case 0xD:
+ case 0xE: /* Pentium M */
+
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
Its usually faster if you don't misalign on x86 as well.
i'm not sure if i agree with usually... but i know you (alan) are
probably aware of the exact requirements of the hw.
for everyone else:
on intel x86 processors an access is unaligned only if it
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Arne Georg Gleditsch wrote:
dean gaudet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
on AMD x86 pre-family 10h the boundary is 8 bytes, and on fam 10h it's 16
bytes. the penalty is a mere 3 cycles if an access crosses the specified
boundary.
Worth noting though, is that atomic
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying filesystem.
If you need to make
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Dec 28 2007 18:53, dean gaudet wrote:
p.s. in retrospect i probably could have arranged it more like this:
mount /dev/md1 $tmpmntpoint
mount --bind $tmpmntpoint/var /var
mount --bind $tmpmntpoint/home /home
umount $tmpmntpoint
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
dean gaudet wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems,
where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working.
I
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote:
dean gaudet wrote:
Pffuff. That's what volume managers are for! You do have (at least) two
independent spindles in your RAID1 array, which give you less need to
worry
about head-stack contention.
this system is write intensive
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:40:47 PST, dean gaudet said:
the main worry i have is some user maliciously hardlinks everything
under /var/log somewhere else and slowly fills up the file system with
old rotated logs.
Doctor, it hurts when I do
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Yes, as Dave said, vmap (more specifically: vunmap) is very expensive
because it generally has to invalidate TLBs on all CPUs.
why is that? ignoring 32-bit archs we have heaps of address space
available... couldn't the kernel just burn address space
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
dean gaudet wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Yes, as Dave said, vmap (more specifically: vunmap) is very expensive
because it generally has to invalidate TLBs on all CPUs.
why is that? ignoring 32-bit archs we
it's so very unfortunate the PCI standard has no feature bit to indicate
the presence of ECS.
FWIW in my testing on a range of machines spanning 7 or 8 years i could
read config space reg 256... and get 0x when the device didn't
support ECS, and get valid data when the device did
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
I've also heard that string operations do not follow the normal ordering, but
that's just with respect to individual loads/stores in the one operation, I
hope? And they will still follow ordering rules WRT surrounding loads and
stores?
see section 7.2.3
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
dean gaudet wrote:
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
I've also heard that string operations do not follow the normal ordering,
but
that's just with respect to individual loads/stores in the one operation,
I
hope
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
This does make me wonder, why these weren't caught in -mm ?
I'm worried that -mm isn't getting a lot of exposure these days. People do
run it, but I wonder how many..
andrew caught it in -mm and reverted
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Bill Irwin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 10:07:59AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
But I do think a second reason to do this is to make hugetlbfs behave
like a normal fs -- that is read(), write(), etc. work on files in the
mountpoint. But that is simply my
http://sandpile.org/
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
Good day.
Would anyone happen to have a list of TLB sizes for some selected x86{,-64}
CPUs? I know it goes from a few entries on a 386 to a lot on Opteron but I
have a real hard time finding specific data.
Rene.
-
To
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 01:48:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
My expectation is if we want to beat the competition, we'll want
the ability to go *under* 100Hz.
What does Windows do here?
windows xp base rate is 100Hz... but multimedia apps can
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 04:41:41PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
windows xp base rate is 100Hz... but multimedia apps can ask for
almost any rate they want (depends on the hw capabilities). i
recall seeing rates 1200Hz when you launch some
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Marc Ballarin wrote:
Hmm, just did. I even tried the rather minimalistic configuration below.
Still no C3. (And what seems even stranger: no C1.)
there's no point to going into C1 if the C2 entry/exit latencies are
acceptable. (winxp generally never uses C1 if C2 is
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
Do you think that the kernel will STOP, HOLD and park the head in less than
a second? OR on the time we need?
this is why the windows driver uses heuristics to decide when the laptop
is possibly unstable and *may* fall soon... because it takes
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
...
The lmbench shows that the overhead (the construction and the sending
of the message) in the fork() routine is around 7%.
...
+ /*
+ * size of data is the number of characters
+ * printed plus one
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Jay Lan wrote:
The fork_connector is not designed to solve accounting data collection
problem.
The accounting data collection must be done via a hook from do_exit().
by the time do_exit() occurs the parent may have disappeared... you do
need to record something at
i was digging around for info on TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT and found this claim in
the thttpd mailing list archive:
Alexey Kuznestov mentioned to me that on SMP servers, this option may
not be desired as it creates a new contention point
is this still the case?
i haven't played with it yet, but i was
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
How do you put pressure on hardware manufacturers for getting them to
release the specs?
If they are able to write supported by Linux on their products anyway
because there's a driver that runs under NdisWrapper?
that's specious... they can put
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, steve roussey wrote:
socket to shut down. Apache has a workaround called lingering_close()
that tries to address broken SO_LINGER implementations, but it also blocks.
apache 1.x is single threaded / forked, so yeah it blocks. the
implementation is there because very few
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Folkert van Heusden wrote:
Doesn't that one also use copying? I've also heard that using mmap is
expensive due to pagefaulting. I've found, for example, that copying a
1.3GB file using read/write instead of mmap memcpy is seconds faster.
why would you memcpy if you're
hi...
i've run into this a bunch of times, but decided to look at it more
closely today. i use IDE disks in md raid1 and/or raid5, and when one
disk is dying or dead it tends to make the entire system unusable.
i don't really fault md here, because i'm pretty sure there are some
fundamental
1 - 100 of 306 matches
Mail list logo
