From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 07:06:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 07:06:08 -0400 Received: from web10407.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.130.99]:63246 "HELO web10407.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 07:06:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20010812110617.34113.qmail@web10407.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:06:17 +1000 (EST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Steve=20Kieu?= Subject: Re: Performance 2.4.8 is worse than 2.4.x<8 To: kernel In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Steve Kieu wrote: > > > Anyone noticed that? > > Details? VM is very much improved but it seems to take resources to free cached pages. > Here, disk write throughput seems to want some > tweaking, and Bonnie that is what I see doing it's rewrite test triggers a very large and > persistant inactive > shortage which shouldn't be there (imho). > > page_launder() is definitely working better than > some of the pre8 > kernels in that it is no longer laundering the > entire dirty list in > one huge gulp. It is also no longer laundering some > random amount. > > Under FWIW: I can find no reason for the existance > of either the > launder_loop nor doing synchronous IO. Here, I > remove both regularly > and detect nothing but benefit both in responsivness > and throughput. > > -Mike > ===== S.KIEU _____________________________________________________________________________ http://shopping.yahoo.com.au - Father's Day Shopping - Find the perfect gift for your Dad for Father's Day