On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> . Spent some time tuning up 2.5's StupidSwapStorm throughput. It's
> on par with 2.4 for single-threaded things, but not for multiple
> processes.
>
> This is because 2.4's virtual scan allows individual processes to
> hammer all the others into swap and to make lots of progress then
> exit. In the 2.5 VM all processes make equal progress and just
> thrash each other to bits.
>
> This is an innate useful side-effect of the virtual scan, although
> it may have significant failure modes. The 2.5 VM would need an
> explicit load control algorithm if we care about such workloads.
1) 2.4 does have the failure modes you talk about ;)
2) I have most of an explicit load control algorithm ready,
against an early 2.4 kernel, but porting it should be very
little work
Just let me know if you're interested in my load control mechanism
and I'll send it to you. Note that I never got the load control
_policy_ right yet ...
regards,
Rik
-- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>- 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 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:36 EST