Re: Bug with shared memory.

[William Lee Irwin III]

At some point in the past, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> How much are you swapping in your workload? (as said the fast paths are
>> hurted a little so it's expected that it's almost as fast as mainline
>> with a kernel compile, similar to the fact we also add anon pages to the
>> lru list). I think you're only exercising the fast paths in your
>> workload, not the memory balancing that is the whole point of the change.

On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 10:23:05AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> No swapping. We fixed the horrendous locking problem we were seeing,
> but this was only one test - obviously others are needed. But I think we're
> in agreement that it's time to give it a beating and see what happens ;-)

There's no mystery or secrecy to the locking work, really just overzealous
(which is good wrt. locking changes) QA and a conservative release schedule.

Cheers,
Bill