Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:40:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:40:45 -0400 Received: from vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca ([136.159.55.21]:57475 "EHLO vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:40:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:40:22 -0600 Message-Id: <200204102240.g3AMeMn16102@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> From: Richard Gooch To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Aviv Shavit , Ken Brownfield , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: vm-33, strongly recommended [Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable] In-Reply-To: <20020410023006.B6875@dualathlon.random> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrea Arcangeli writes: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:07:50PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote: > > Andrea Arcangeli writes: > > > I recommend everybody to never use a 2.4 kernel without first applying > > > this vm patch: > > [...] > > > > The way you write this makes it sound that the unpatched kernel is > > very dangerous. Is this actually true? Or do you really just mean "the > > patched kernel has better handling under extreme loads"? > > The unpatched kernel isn't dangerous in the sense it won't destroy > data, it won't corrupt memory and finally it won't deadlock on smp > locks, but it can theoretically deadlock with oom and it has various > other runtime issues starting from highmem balancing, too much > swapping, lru list balancing, related-bhs in highmem, numa broken > with += min etc... so IMHO it is better to _always_ use the patched > kernel that takes care of all problems that I know of at the moment, > plus it has further optimizations. OTOH for lots of workloads > mainline is just fine, the deadlocks never trigger and the runtime > behaviour is ok, but unless you are certain you don't need the > vm-33.gz patch, I recommend to apply it. So, in other words, 99.99% of users don't need to apply the patch. They should, in order to have a better system, but 99.99% of them won't notice the difference. That seems to be a more honest recommendation than the "panic stations" alert that you posted. Just because you want people to apply your patches, doesn't mean you should resort to alarmist-sounding messages. Let's at least have truth in advertising in one small corner of the world :-) Regards, Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - 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/