Re: BUG: Slowdown on 3000 socket-machines tracked down

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 00:12:42 EST

On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 05:53 +0100, Christian Schmid wrote:

> > The other thing that worries me is your need for lower_zone_protection.
> > I think this may be due to unbalanced highmem vs lowmem reclaim. It
> > would be interesting to know if those patches I sent you improve this.
> > They certainly improve reclaim balancing for me... but again I guess
> > you'll be reluctant to do much experimentation :\
> I have tested your patch and unfortunately on 2.6.11 it didnt change anything :( I reported this
> before, or do you mean something else? I am of course willing to test patches as I do not want to
> stick with 2.6.10 forever.

Well I hope that scheduler developments in progress will put future
kernels at least on par with 2.6.10 again (and hopefully better).

Yes you did report that my patch didn't help 2.6.11, but could those
results have been influenced by the suboptimal HT scheduling? If so,
I was interested in the results with HT turned off.


Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at