On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 05:58:48AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > One of the issues which seems to be affecting performance
> > is the elevator starvation bug, though, so I'm not sure how
>
> You are contraddicting yourself. If you decrease the latency (so
> if you fix the starvation) the global disk throughput can only
> decrease.
Umm, where did I define "performance" as being
the same as "global disk throughput" ??
You're imagining things again, and blaming me for it ;)
> > Once the elevator problem has been solved, we should be able
>
> I'm tired of you screwing up the VM and then complaining the
> elevator. At least try to vary and choose something else to
> complain.
There was a known starvation issue in the elevator,
at least up to 2.4.0-test9-pre2. Until that problem is
resolved, that is the logical thing to "blame" for the
phenomenon that one process stalls while some others are
still running at full speed.
Besides, if it was a VM issue, all allocators would
stall. That did not happen, so VM wasn't the subsystem
to blame in this case.
That said, there may be some interactivity issues with the
VM, but with the elevator bug present, there is not much
possibility to test for those.
About screwing up the VM subsystem, why didn't you help with the
details? (remember that you agreed about the design in Ottawa)
regards,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:23 EST