2001-04-24 23:49:30

by Colonel

Subject:

From: Colonel <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
(message from Marcelo Tosatti on Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:31:12 -0300
(BRT))
Subject: Re: 2.4.4-pre6 : THANKS! very snappy here [nt]
Reply-to: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:31:12 -0300 (BRT)
From: Marcelo Tosatti <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]


Just as curiosity --- did it got faster in pre5 ?

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Colonel wrote:

> but since you read it, system seems like it's running twice as fast


Actually, it made not be pre6. I patched the kernel per some thread
on LKML a few days before, but had not had the opportunity to reboot
and run it until pre6. The patch was :


--- linux/mm/page_alloc.c.~1~ Tue Mar 20 15:05:46 2001
+++ linux/mm/page_alloc.c Sat Apr 21 19:01:47 2001
@@ -454,7 +454,6 @@
if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) {
memory_pressure++;
try_to_free_pages(gfp_mask);
- wakeup_bdflush(0);
goto try_again;
}
}


It would make more sense that the above change was responsible for the
improvement.

2001-04-25 00:15:23

by Marcelo Tosatti

Subject: [PATCH] remove wakeup_bdflush(0) from __alloc_pages()

Linus,

Can you please apply the following patch ?

It avoids allocators from waking up bdflush all the time even when it does
not have any job to do (ie no more than 30% (default) of dirty buffers).

Thanks

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Colonel wrote:

> From: Colonel <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
> In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
> (message from Marcelo Tosatti on Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:31:12 -0300
> (BRT))
> Subject: Re: 2.4.4-pre6 : THANKS! very snappy here [nt]
> Reply-to: [email protected]
> References: <[email protected]>
>
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:31:12 -0300 (BRT)
> From: Marcelo Tosatti <[email protected]>
> X-Sender: [email protected]
>
>
> Just as curiosity --- did it got faster in pre5 ?
>
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Colonel wrote:
>
> > but since you read it, system seems like it's running twice as fast
>
>
> Actually, it made not be pre6. I patched the kernel per some thread
> on LKML a few days before, but had not had the opportunity to reboot
> and run it until pre6. The patch was :
>
>
> --- linux/mm/page_alloc.c.~1~ Tue Mar 20 15:05:46 2001
> +++ linux/mm/page_alloc.c Sat Apr 21 19:01:47 2001
> @@ -454,7 +454,6 @@
> if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) {
> memory_pressure++;
> try_to_free_pages(gfp_mask);
> - wakeup_bdflush(0);
> goto try_again;
> }
> }
>
>
> It would make more sense that the above change was responsible for the
> improvement.
>