Re: Unresponiveness of 2.4.16

["Sean Elble" <S_Elble@yahoo.com>]

> Not exactly.  That kernel is -ac based (plus lots of other patches, some
> of them VM tweaks) and is a Van Riel VM.

Right; it's not the "stock" 2.4.9 VM, but it isn't Andrea's either . . . one
of those gray area things. :-) I guess we just have to wait until he posts
the results with the "stock" 2.4.9 kernel to see if Red Hat fixed the
problem or not. Have a good one!

-----------------------------------------------
Sean P. Elble
Editor, Writer, Co-Webmaster
ReactiveLinux.com (Formerly MaximumLinux.org)
http://www.reactivelinux.com/
elbles@reactivelinux.com
-----------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ledford" <dledford@redhat.com>
To: "Sean Elble" <S_Elble@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Nathan G. Grennan" <ngrennan@okcforum.org>;
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Unresponiveness of 2.4.16


> Sean Elble wrote:
>
> >>I tried switching to Redhat's 2.4.9-13 kernel and it acts Alot better.
> >>Not only does 2.4.9-13 not get the 30 second delay, but it also seems to
> >>take advantage of caching. 2.4.16 takes the same moment of time each
> >>time, even tho it should have cached it all into memory the first time.
> >>
> >
> > Unless Red Hat has specifically added Andrea's new VM code to the 2.4.9
> > kernel, then that kernel is still using the old VM.
>
>
> Not exactly.  That kernel is -ac based (plus lots of other patches, some
> of them VM tweaks) and is a Van Riel VM.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>   Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>  http://people.redhat.com/dledford
>        Please check my web site for aic7xxx updates/answers before
>                        e-mailing me about problems