Re: Linux 2.4.1-ac7

• Next message: Petr Vandrovec: "Re: [PATCH] Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection o"
• Previous message: Greg Louis: "2.4.1-ac8 build glitch"
• In reply to: Kurt Roeckx: "Re: Linux 2.4.1-ac7"
• Next in thread: Mike Galbraith: "Re: Linux 2.4.1-ac7"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Kurt Roeckx wrote:

> I just tested ac8.
>
> If I run this test, the system gets really slow. It takes about
> a second between the time I press a key, and the time it appears
> on the screen. The load goes way up. Everything seems to block.

I'm sorry, but ... what test ?
And how do older kernels run the same thing ?

> It ran for serval minutes. The process itself took about 1
> minutes of CPU time, and so did kswapd. It took atleast 5
> minutes real time.
>
> I once did just the same with 2.4.0, it took more like 30
> minutes then, and I ended up killing the process myself.

So the kernel's behaviour has improved ?

regards,

Rik

--
Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
		http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/	http://distro.conectiva.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/

• Next message: Petr Vandrovec: "Re: [PATCH] Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection o"
• Previous message: Greg Louis: "2.4.1-ac8 build glitch"
• In reply to: Kurt Roeckx: "Re: Linux 2.4.1-ac7"
• Next in thread: Mike Galbraith: "Re: Linux 2.4.1-ac7"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:14 EST