From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 09:39:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 09:39:28 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:5906 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 09:39:15 -0400 Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.5-ac2 To: fabio@chromium.com (Fabio Riccardi) Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:37:00 +0100 (BST) Cc: laughing@shared-source.org (Alan Cox), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrea@suse.de (Andrea Arcangeli), bentw@chello.nl (Ben Twijnstra) In-Reply-To: <3B11C9AB.72075EC6@chromium.com> from "Fabio Riccardi" at May 27, 2001 08:44:43 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Performance is back to that of 2.4.2-ac26, and stability is a lot better. Under > heavy FS pressure 2.4.5-ac2 is about 5-10% faster than vanilla 2.4.5, the aa1,2 > kernels have the same performance of vanilla 2.4.5. > > Which one of your changes affected performance so much? Its much more a case that the 2.4.5 tree got fixed and I picked up the 2.4.5 changes. Its still not perfect (bigmem will deadlock again as in 2.4.5 vanilla now) but its a much better basis to work from again