[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ PATCH ] Replace glibc spin-locks with gsync-based locks
|
From: |
Richard Braun |
|
Subject: |
Re: [ PATCH ] Replace glibc spin-locks with gsync-based locks |
|
Date: |
Sat, 7 May 2016 09:51:10 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 11:19:20PM -0300, Agustina Arzille wrote:
> I run it with "kvm -m 512 -hda debian-hurd-20160325.img", because I had heard
> mixed things about writeback cache. I'll try a build again with that option.
The writeback option is only used for performance, but for now, it's
still recommended.
The real issue here in my opinion is the low amount of memory. We
know our swapping code is low quality, so adding memory (2g at most
currently) makes it a lot less likely to hit a "swapping deadlock".
--
Richard Braun
Re: [ PATCH ] Replace glibc spin-locks with gsync-based locks, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo, 2016/05/09
Re: [ PATCH ] Replace glibc spin-locks with gsync-based locks, Samuel Thibault, 2016/05/13