Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263370AbVCKP3q (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:29:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263371AbVCKP3q (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:29:46 -0500 Received: from www.rapidforum.com ([80.237.244.2]:23190 "HELO rapidforum.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263370AbVCKP3o (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:29:44 -0500 Message-ID: <4231B95B.6020209@rapidforum.com> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:29:31 +0100 From: Christian Schmid User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8a3) Gecko/20040817 X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: greearb@candelatech.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BUG: Slowdown on 3000 socket-machines tracked down References: <4229E805.3050105@rapidforum.com> <422BAAC6.6040705@candelatech.com> <422BB548.1020906@rapidforum.com> <422BC303.9060907@candelatech.com> <422BE33D.5080904@yahoo.com.au> <422C1D57.9040708@candelatech.com> <422C1EC0.8050106@yahoo.com.au> <422D468C.7060900@candelatech.com> <422DD5A3.7060202@rapidforum.com> <422F8A8A.8010606@candelatech.com> <422F8C58.4000809@rapidforum.com> <422F9259.2010003@candelatech.com> <422F93CE.3060403@rapidforum.com> <20050309211730.24b4fc93.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050309211730.24b4fc93.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1327 Lines: 32 OHGAWD I GOT IT!!!!!!!! I admit, totally coincidentially but its really FIXED. Today I went to the puter scanning the servers by routine and wondered why the bandwidth is at 100% without any holes. The only thing I have done is I switched off hyper-threading because the server is at only 20% CPU anyway so I just disabled it. So its something with linux dealing with hyper-threading. YAY :) Andrew Morton wrote: > Christian Schmid wrote: > >> > So, maybe a VM problem? That would be a good place to focus since >> > I think we can be fairly certain it isn't a problem in just the >> > networking code. Otherwise, my tests would show lower bandwidth. >> >> Thanks to your tests I am really sure that its no network-code problem anymore. But what I THINK it >> is: The network is allocating buffers dynamically and if the vm doesnt provide that buffers fast >> enough, it locks as well. > > > Did anyone have a 100-liner which demonstrates this problem? > > The output of `vmstat 1' when the thing starts happening would be interesting. > > - 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/