Re: [Bug 890] New: performance regression compared to 2.4.20
Idan Sofer (idan@idanso.dyndns.org)
Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:57:17 +0300 (IDT)
> The 2.4 VM's virtual scan has the effect of swapping out one process at a
> time. 2.5's physical(ish) scan doesn't have that side-effect.
Can you elaborate on the matter of virtual vs physical VM scan? Am I
correct concluding this has to do with rmap?
> To fix this properly we need load control: to identify when the system is
> thrashing and to explicitly suspend chosen processes for a while, so other
> processes can make decent progress. A couple of people are looking at
> that; I'm not sure what stage it is at.
If there is even an experimental patch then I will be happy to try it out,
it's probably has a lesser effect when you enough ram, but currently
that's the reason I still avoid using development kernels on that box.
--
Idan
-
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/