Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:49:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:49:47 -0500 Received: from lilly.ping.de ([62.72.90.2]:61202 "HELO lilly.ping.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:49:43 -0500 Date: 2 Nov 2001 17:48:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20011102174835.B479@planetzork.spacenet> From: jogi@planetzork.ping.de To: "Linus Torvalds" Cc: "Kernel Mailing List" Subject: Re: 2.4.14-pre6 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@transmeta.com on Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:00:00AM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:00:00AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Incredibly, I didn't get a _single_ bugreport about the fact that I had > forgotten to change the version number in pre5. Usually that's everybody's > favourite bug.. Is everybody asleep on the lists? I noticed but I thought everybody else would complain :-) [...] > The MM has calmed down, but the OOM killer didn't use to work. Now it > does, with heurstics that are so incredibly simple that it's almost > embarrassing. > > And I dare anybody to break those OOM heuristics - either by not > triggering when they should, or by triggering too early. You'll get an > honourable mention if you can break them and tell me how ("Honourable > mention"? Yeah, I'm cheap. What else is new?) > > In fact, I'd _really_ like to know of any VM loads that show bad > behaviour. If you have a pet peeve about the VM, now is the time to speak > up. Because otherwise I think I'm done. I did my usual kernel compile testings and here are the resuls: j25 j50 j75 j100 2.4.13-pre5aa1: 5:02.63 5:09.18 5:26.27 5:34.36 2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:58.80 5:12.30 5:26.23 5:32.14 2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:57.66 5:11.29 5:45.90 6:03.53 2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:58.39 5:13.10 5:29.32 5:44.49 2.4.13-pre5aa1: 4:57.93 5:09.76 5:24.76 5:26.79 2.4.14-pre6: 4:58.88 5:16.68 5:45.93 7:16.56 2.4.14-pre6: 4:55.72 5:34.65 5:57.94 6:50.58 2.4.14-pre6: 4:59.46 5:16.88 6:25.83 6:51.43 2.4.14-pre6: 4:56.38 5:18.88 6:15.97 6:31.72 2.4.14-pre6: 4:55.79 5:17.47 6:00.23 6:44.85 2.4.14-pre7: 4:56.39 5:22.84 6:09.05 9:56.59 2.4.14-pre7: 4:56.55 5:25.15 7:01.37 7:03.74 2.4.14-pre7: 4:59.44 5:15.10 6:06.78 12:51.39* 2.4.14-pre7: 4:58.07 5:30.55 6:15.37 * 2.4.14-pre7: 4:58.17 5:26.80 6:41.44 * The last three of the runs of make -j100 with -pre7 failed since some processes (portmap and cc1) were killed. So the oom killer seems to kill (in case of portmap) the wrong processes and might trigger a little too early. I have no data about the swap / mem usage at that time since the script runs unattended. Otherwise -pre5aa1 still seems to be the fastest kernel *in this test*. I have not checked about the interactivity issues so this might be a *feature*. Regards, Jogi -- Well, yeah ... I suppose there's no point in getting greedy, is there? << Calvin & Hobbes >> - 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/