From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dax.scot.redhat.com (sct@dax.scot.redhat.com [195.89.149.242]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA32716 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:56:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:56:04 GMT Message-Id: <199901251756.RAA06134@dax.scot.redhat.com> From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: MM deadlock [was: Re: arca-vm-8...] In-Reply-To: <19990125141409.A29248@boole.suse.de> References: <199901132214.WAA07436@dax.scot.redhat.com> <19990114155321.C573@Galois.suse.de> <19990125141409.A29248@boole.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Dr. Werner Fink" Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Andrea Arcangeli , Rik van Riel , Zlatko Calusic , Savochkin Andrey Vladimirovich , steve@netplus.net, brent verner , "Garst R. Reese" , Kalle Andersson , Ben McCann , Alan Cox , bredelin@ucsd.edu, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:14:09 +0100, "Dr. Werner Fink" said: > which leads into load upper 30. You can see a great performance upto > load to 25 ... 30+ *and* a brutal break down of that performance > at this point. The system is a PentiumII 400MHz with 32, 64, 128MB > (mem=xxx) and SCSI only. In comparision to 2.0.36 the performance > is *beside of this break down* much better ... that means that only > the performance break down at high load is the real problem. But is the performance of 2.0.36 better or worse at high load? --Stephen -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm my@address' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/