> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:33:15AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:53:10PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > Don't you agree that your code can introduce new stability bugs ?
> > >
> > > not anything that can corrupt randomly your hd.
> >
> > Sure, the old code did not corrupt hd's randomly, did it?
> >
> > Let me redo the question: Don't you think the old stinky and slow code was
> > reasonably stable ? :)
>
> As said in the other email, just check 2.4 l-k reports of this week,
> last week etc.., I've lots of private reports too. While for everybody
> 2.2.19 is working fine.
Have you seen any problem report which does not happen with anon intensive
workloads ?
As far as I've noted, people usually report performance problems when
running anon intensive workloads. For those cases, I'm pretty sure the
swap_out() loop is the fuckup: the swap allocation code is really a _CRAP_
for the current VM.
-
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/