On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On January 3, 2002 06:15 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > And we, the kernel developers, should hang our heads over this. A
> > vendor-released, stable kernel is performing terribly with such a
> > simple workload. One year after the release of 2.4.0!
>
> To be fair, in the year leading up to 2.4.0 much energy was expended on
> getting the bugs out of the unified and heaviliy threaded page+buffer
> cache[1], at the expense of work on the memory manager, so 2001 ended up
> being like a whole new kernel cycle. Anyway, the saving grace is that 2.2
> managed to metamorphose from ugly duckling to... quite a nice duck, with
> almost all the features of 2.4 from the user's point of view. So everybody
> has something to run.
>
> With 20 20 hindsight, the VM work could have been managed better but I don't
> see why anybody's head needs to be hung. It was a bumpy road, we had to
> change a few tires, but we got to the other side of the mountain.
We did? I'm running the last released kernel and today I got an OOM event
when 1.4 GB main memory was used for buffer cache. I have to babysit any
Linux 2.4 machines that have interesting workloads. 2.4 may have reached
a local maximum, but the ascent to the peak is still in front of us.
-jwb
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:20 EST