Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:01:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:01:43 -0500 Received: from brutus.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.146]:33529 "EHLO brutus.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:01:35 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:01:15 -0200 (BRDT) From: Rik van Riel To: Kurt Roeckx cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.1-ac7 In-Reply-To: <20010209025406.A243@ping.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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/