On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, James Mastros wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 12:34:08AM -0500, James Mastros wrote:
Step 3 doesn't have to be a simple cp. I did tar -cvvI /chris/windows/*
|tar -xvvI /mnt/windows (or similar) to check once, and the same thing
happened.
Or bonnie.
Have you tried
On 15 Jan 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
"Vlad Bolkhovitine" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is updated info for 2.4.1pre3:
Size is MB, BlkSz is Bytes, Read, Write, and Seeks are MB/sec
with mmap()
File Block Num Seq ReadRand Read Seq Write Rand Write
Dir
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote:
My box thinks quite highly of that patch fwiw, but insists that he needs
to apply Jens Axboes' blk patch first ;-) (Not because of tiobench)
New data:
2.4.1pre3 + Marcelo's patch
File Block Num Seq ReadRand Read Seq
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Stefan Ring wrote:
I know that increasing the number of DIMMs on your board will require
speedier RAMs on ASUS boards with some sort of an i440 chipset. This may
well be the case for just about every other MB, it's only that I don't
know specifically about these
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
1. Only a software guy would call it 'bounce'.. sounds funny ;-)
Er...I help design some of the hardware and the rules, so I do more than
just software. So does 'echo' or 'reflections'sound better than 'bounce'?
Yes. (I wasn't cracking on
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Mo McKinlay wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Today, H. Peter Anvin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hello people... the original question was: can lost+found be
*renamed*, i.e. does the tools (e2fsck c) use "/lost+found" by name,
or by inode?
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Chris Evans wrote:
Stephen Tweedie has a rather funky i/o stats enhancement patch which
should provide what you need. It comes with RedHat7.0 and gives decent
disk statistics in /proc/partitions.
Monitoring via
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
I have been monitoring the memory usage constantly with the gnome
memory usage meter and noticed that as swap grows it is never freed
back up. I can kill off most of the large applications, such as
I've seen this mentioned a few times now and am
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
If I turn swap off all together or turn it off and back on
periodically to clear the swap before it gets full, I do not seem to
experience the lockups.
Why do I not see this behavior with a heavy swap throughput test load?
It seems decidedly
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
Does any swap write/release if you hit such a box with heavy duty IO?
(pages on dirty list, swapspace allocated but writeout defered?)
Hard to tell. I switched my desktop box back to 2.2 a while back
until the VM works.
I should have reversed to/cc..
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
2.4.4.pre7.virgin
real11m33.589s
user7m57.790s
sys 0m38.730s
2.4.4.pre7.sillyness
real9m30.336s
user7m55.270s
sys 0m38.510s
Well, I actually like parts
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
1. pagecache is becoming swapcache and must be aged before anything is
done. Meanwhile we're calling refill_inactive_scan() so fast that noone
has a chance to touch a page. Age becomes a simple counter
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
limit the runtime of refill_inactive_scan(). This is similar to Rik's
reclaim-limit+aging-tuning patch to linux-mm yesterday. could you try
Rik's patch
On 13 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Why do I not see this behavior with a heavy swap throughput test
load? It seems decidedly odd to me that swapspace should remain
allocated on other folks lightly loaded boxen given that my
On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Galbraith) wrote on 13.05.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
Hi folks,
Found this bit of unused code in the i386 and sh architectures. As it's not being
used, let's get rid of it. Also, pgtable.h seems to be an odd place for this.
I'd leave it.. folks with early boot troubles might find it useful.
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
At 7:36 PM +0200 2001-05-15, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
Hi folks,
Found this bit of unused code in the i386 and sh architectures.
As it's not being used, let's get rid of it. Also, pgtable.h seems
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Chris Evans wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
2.4.4-ac10
[...]
- now 2.4.5pre vm seems sane dump other vmscan
experiments
Has anyone benched 2.4.5pre3 vs 2.4.4 vs. ?
Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up,
but it swaps
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Has anyone benched 2.4.5pre3 vs 2.4.4 vs. ?
Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up,
but it swaps too heavily. It's a little too conservative about
releasing cache now imho
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
As for the language CML2 is written in, surely C would work just as well as
Python if the config-ruleset file is in a known format. GCC is required
for the kernel to build, I don't see why anything else should be required
simply to configure it.
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up,
but it swaps too heavily. It's a little too
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
Rik: Would you take patches for such a tradeoff sysctl?
such a tradeoff ?
While this sounds reasonable, I have to point out that
up to now nobody has described exactly WHAT tradeoff
they'd like to make
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:23:03PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
Rik: Would you take patches for such a tradeoff sysctl?
such a tradeoff ?
While this sounds reasonable, I have to point out that
up to now
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:44:39PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
This is the core of why we cannot (IMHO) have a discussion
of whether a patch introducing new VM tunables can go in:
there is no clear overview of exactly what would need to
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:44:39PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
This is the core of why we cannot (IMHO) have a discussion
of whether a patch introducing new VM tunables can go in:
there is no
Hi,
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Peter Zaitsev wrote:
Hello linux-kernel,
I've trying to move some of my servers to 2.4.4 kernel from 2.2.x.
Everything goes fine, notable perfomance increase occures, but the
problem is I'm really often touch the following problem:
allocation failures
Hi,
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are
trying to solve is fundamentally dynamic in most cases (which is also
why magic numbers tend to suck in the VM.)
Magic numbers might be sucking some performance right now
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are
trying to solve is fundamentally dynamic in most cases (which is also
why magic
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Dieter Nützel wrote:
Three back to back make -j 30 runs for three different kernels.
Swap cache numbers are taken immediately after last completion.
The performance increase is nice, though. Do you see similar
changes in different kinds of workloads ?
I you
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
I'm not sure why that helps. I didn't put it in as a trick or
anything though. I put it in because it didn't seem like a
good idea to ever have more cleaned pages than free pages at a
time when we're
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
You're right. It should never dump too much data at once. OTOH, if
those cleaned pages are really old (front of reclaim list), there's no
value in keeping them either. Maybe there should be a slow
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 05:29:49AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
I'm not sure why that helps. I didn't put it in as a trick or
anything though. I put it in because it didn't seem like a
good idea to ever have more cleaned pages than free pages
On 20 May 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are
trying to solve is fundamentally dynamic in most cases (which is also
why
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On 20 May 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
Also in all recent kernels, if the machine is swapping, swap cache
grows without limits and is hard to recycle, but then again that is
a known problem
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
@@ -1054,7 +1033,7 @@
if (!zone-size)
continue;
- while (zone-free_pages zone-pages_low
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 10:10:49PM -0400, Robert M. Love wrote:
im not installing python2 from source just so i can run some new config
utility.
python2 will be in rawhide when 2.5 development requires it, if I'm not much
mistaken.
Alan
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
Folks, who the hell is responsible for rd_inodes[] idiocy?
That would have been me. It was simple and needed at the time..
feel free to rip it up :)
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
Remember that inactive_clean pages are always immediately
reclaimable by __alloc_pages(), if you measured a performance
difference by freeing pages in a different way I'm pretty sure
it's a side effect of something else. What that something
else is
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
Remember that inactive_clean pages are always immediately
reclaimable by __alloc_pages(), if you measured a performance
difference by freeing pages
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
Folks, who the hell is responsible for rd_inodes[] idiocy?
That would have been me. It was simple and needed at the time..
feel free to rip it up
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
Folks, who the hell is responsible for rd_inodes
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
OK.. let's forget about throughput for a moment and consider
those annoying reports of 0 order allocations failing :)
Those are ok. All failing 0 order allocations are either
atomic allocations or GFP_BUFFER allocations. I guess we
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Jaswinder Singh wrote:
Dear Mike ,
This one I tested with memleak. It wasn't a leak, it was dcache
growth. Under vm stress, it shrank down fine.
It will depends upon lot of thing :-
1.What is your size of ramfs ,
unlimited.
2. Are you using any harddisk ,
(??
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Jaswinder Singh wrote:
Dear Mike ,
Are you using harddisk ?
The OS resides on disk, yes. I suppose I could plunk a minimal
system into ramfs, pivot_root and umount disk, but I don't see
any way that could matter for a memory leak.
(hmm.. locking up tho. script makes
On Sat, 26 May 2001, Jaswinder Singh wrote:
The OS resides on disk, yes. I suppose I could plunk a minimal
system into ramfs, pivot_root and umount disk, but I don't see
any way that could matter for a memory leak.
It is very difficult to see memory leak , with hard disks .
It is
On Sun, 27 May 2001, Jaswinder Singh wrote:
Does it hang if you are doing other things than creating/destroying
tiny files (with unique names) as rapidly as possible?.. ie did you
start doing that to troubleshoot because it was hanging over a long
period of time?
If i create and
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Leeuw van der, Tim wrote:
The VM in 2.4.5 might be largely 'fixed' and I know that the VM changes in
-ac were considered to be but still broken, however for me they worked
better than what is in 2.4.5.
The VM changes in 2.4.5 fixed a very serious performance problem.
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Tuesday 29 May 2001 00:10, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
Mem: 381608K av, 248504K used, 133104K free, 0K shrd, 192K
buff
Swap: 255608K av, 255608K used, 0K free 215744K
cached
Vanilla 2.4.5 VM.
It's not a bug. It's a
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Craig Kulesa wrote:
Mike Galbraith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Emphatic yes. We went from cache collapse to cache bloat.
Rik, I think Mike deserves his beer. ;)
:)
...
So is there an ideal VM balance for everyone? I have found that low-RAM
(I seriously doubt
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
The page aging logic does seems fragile as heck. You never know how
many folks are aging pages or at what rate. If aging happens too fast,
it defeats the garbage identification logic and you rape your cache. If
aging happens too slowly..
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
The page aging logic does seems fragile as heck. You never know how
many folks are aging pages or at what rate. If aging happens too fast,
it defeats the garbage identification logic and you rape
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
The problem is that we allow _every_ task to age pages on the system
at the same time --- this is one of the things which is fucking up.
This should not have any effect on the ratio of cache
reclaiming
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
The problem is that we allow _every_ task to age pages on the system
at the same time --- this is one
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 15:17, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 01:02, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Vincent Stemen wrote:
On Tuesday 29 May 2001 15:16, Alan Cox wrote
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Rasmus Andersen wrote:
Hi.
Interesting turn in my efforts to make linux boot on my newly acquired
old computer: Mike Galbraith offered me IKD for 2.4.0t8, which I
accepted and tried (I said yes to all the IKD config options). This
made 2.4.0t8 boot and get as far
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Rasmus Andersen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 12:40:25AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Rasmus Andersen wrote:
[...]
So adding IKD to 2.4.0t8 made the initial oops go away/be hidden.
The odd colours/chars are the print EIP feature in action
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Ted,
I am looking at these sources as well. One thing I went back and looked
at was related to a comment from Mike G. I believe regarding drivers
conflicts with int 0x13 requests potentially hosing the IDE driver. In
Hmm.. must be a different
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Anton Petrusevich wrote:
Hi Linus,
please, check carefully Rik's VM patch, it definitly contains a
deadlock, which can be seen on low-memory computers. Try mem=8m. I
wasn't able to use any Rik patch since against -test8 (-t8-vmpatch{2,4},
-test9-pre{1,2}). It boots
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
Ingo Molnar writes:
The reference kernel should be IMO 'untainted' though. Believe me,
during the 2.3.2x pagecache rewrite my kernel was hacked with ad-hoc
debugging code beyond recognition - eg. automatic checksumming of
every physical page in
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Roger Larsson wrote:
Hi,
Trying to find out why test9-pre4 freezes with mmap002
I added a counter for try_again loops.
... __alloc_pages(...)
int direct_reclaim = 0;
unsigned int gfp_mask = zonelist-gfp_mask;
struct page * page = NULL;
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Keith Owens wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:11:30 -0500 (CDT),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Watters) wrote:
[root@porsche13 themod-dev]# insmod themod.o
themod.o: unresolved symbol write_lock
themod.o: unresolved symbol read_lock
gcc -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Roger Larsson wrote:
Hi,
Tried latest patch with the same result - freeze...
Ditto.
No extra patches added.
Ditto.
running from console as root
mmap002 from memtest-0.0.3
with RAMSIZE defined as 90 MB (I have 96MB)
after a while with heavy disk access
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Last pre-kernel - I'll do the real test9 before I fly off to
Germany on Tuesday.
- pre8:
- quintela: fix the synchronous wait on kmem_cache_shrink().
This should fix the mmap02 lockup.
Greetings,
In order for hdparm -d 1 to work in test9-pre8, I had to reverse
this change. (Without being able to enable dma, performance here
is muy el-stinko;-) Is enabling dma manually now forbidden? (or
am I maybe missing something else?)
diff -urN
Greetings,
In test9-pre9, mcheck_init() is never called. Is bluesmoke intentionally
disabled? If not...
--- linux-2.4.0-test9-pre9.virgin/arch/i386/kernel/setup.c.org Tue Oct 3 08:52:41
2000
+++ linux-2.4.0-test9-pre9.virgin/arch/i386/kernel/setup.c Tue Oct 3 08:52:59
+2000
@@
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Ingo,
KDB is a user mode debugger designed to debug user space apps that's
been hacked to run with a driver. It's not designed as a kernel level
debugger and in real
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Ingo,
KDB is a user mode debugger designed to debug user space apps that's
been hacked to run with a driver. It's not designed as a kernel level
debugger and in real world situations has tons of shortcomings period.
?!? KDB is a minimalist
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
but the other IKD components, like the soft lockup detector, kernel
tracer, leak detector and other goodies, are clearly intrusive. It's
also a pain (and distraction) to 'drag' all that functionality along
in a developer kernel - i'm sure Mike can
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Damien Miller wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, David S. Miller wrote:
(What means 'social engineering attempts'?)
Attempting to change people's habits by making it hard to debug.
Hard work now leads to less work later.
Lots of people (myself included) would
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
Mike Galbraith writes:
Surely there must be some useful features that can be included in the
kernel without uglyfing it or slowing it down (configed out)? Leaving
aside the social engineering attempts, of course :-)
They can all
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo All!
Help! See below for my kernel oops. I have not been able to use any
kernel after 2.4.0-test5 due to this problem. It happens shortly
after booting the kernel and is very repeatable.
This is a dual PII system with PIIX4 ide, 53c875
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo Mike!
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Help! See below for my kernel oops. I have not been able to use any
kernel after 2.4.0-test5 due to this problem. It happens shortly
after booting the kernel and is very repeatable
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Dewet Diener wrote:
Reproduced the BUG again, but the system was still able to produce a
(better) ksymoops output:
Ditto here as soon as I touch swap.
kernel BUG at vmscan.c:102!
Entering kdb (current=0xc7f9e000, pid 3) Panic: invalid operand
due to panic @ 0xc012a995
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can anyone tell the subsitute for MAP_NR in version 2.4?
or is MAP_NR still there?
Hi,
MAP_NR() became virt_to_page() as of test6-pre8.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Mark Hahn wrote:
This is something that has been bugging me for a while. I notice
on my system that during disk write we do much context switching,
but not during disk read. Why is that?
bdflush is broken in current kernels. I posted to linux-mm about this,
but
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Mark Hahn wrote:
This is something that has been bugging me for a while. I notice
on my system that during disk write we do much context switching,
but not during disk read. Why is that?
bdflush is broken
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Mark Hahn wrote:
} bdflush is broken in current kernels. I posted to linux-mm about this,
} but Rik et al haven't shown any interest. I normally see bursts of
} up to around 40K cs/second when doing writes; I hacked a little
} premption counter into the
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Mark Hahn wrote:
This is something that has been bugging me for a while. I notice
on my system that during disk write we do much context switching,
but not during disk
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Mark Hahn wrote:
I don't really expect much from my BP6, but:
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
I've made a little progress fighting with bdflush. Can you please
try this and see if it helps you? I have still to figure out why,
but here, the first bdflush param _must_ be over 75 and under 90
to avoid zillions of context switches.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Shawn Starr wrote:
Feb 23 21:17:47 coredump kernel: __alloc_pages: 3-order allocation failed.
Feb 23 21:17:47 coredump kernel: __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed.
Feb 23 21:17:47 coredump kernel: __alloc_pages: 1-order allocation failed.
Feb 23 21:17:47 coredump
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article 87861.983061717@tiny you wrote:
Exactly. The tail conversion code depends heavily on the page up to date
bit being set right. It is more than possible that I've screwed up
something there, and the code thinks a page is valid
The way sg_low_malloc() tries to allocate, failure messages are
pretty much garanteed. It tries high order allocations (which
are unreliable even when not stressed) and backs off until it
succeeds.
In other words, the messages are a red herring.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Marc Lehmann wrote:
It seems linux-2.4 still freezes on out-of-memory situations:
snip
Usually I swapon ./swap some 512MB swapfile, but today I forgot it. When the
machine started to get sluggish I sent the process a -STOP signal.
Signal delivery during oomest does not
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:58:32PM +0100, Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Usually I swapon ./swap some 512MB swapfile, but today I forgot it. When the
machine started to get sluggish I sent the process a -STOP signal.
Signal delivery
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Marc Lehmann wrote:
Oh, and one last thing I forgot: loop devices. Since 2.4.1 (the first
version I used) through 2.4.2 and 2.4.2ac3 I only get:
cerebro:~# strace -f -o x losetup -e rc6 /dev/loop0 /dev/hdd
Memory Fault
And then no access to the loop device works
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 08:11:55AM +0100, Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, it works fine here with virgin 2.4.2, so it seems unlikely it's
a kernel problem.
259 execve("/sbin/losetup", ["losetup", &quo
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
If anybody as a good idea to make this code auto-balancing,
please let me know.
(I haven't seen even one suggestion posted.. must be a real bugger)
I haven't found any silver bullets ;) but the one line bend-adjust
below does help the cache problem a
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Shawn Starr wrote:
It may not be an important message but what does happen is /dev/dsp becomes
hung and no sound works after the fault. So something is definately wrong.
Do you mean it hangs without the BUG() inserted, or only after the oops?
-Mike
-
To
Hi,
Attempting to avoid doing I/O has been harmful to throughput here
ever since the queueing/elevator woes were fixed. Ever since then,
tossing attempts at avoidance has improved throughput markedly.
IMHO, any patch which claims to improve throughput via code deletion
should be worth a little
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Attempting to avoid doing I/O has been harmful to throughput here
ever since the queueing/elevator woes were fixed. Ever since then,
tossing attempts at avoidance has improved throughput markedly
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
What the patch does is simply to push I/O as fast as we can.. we're
by definition I/O bound and _can't_ defer it under any circumstance,
for in this direction lies constipation. The only thing
Have you tried to use SWAP_SHIFT as 4 instead of 5 on a stock 2.4.2-ac5 to
see if the system still swaps out too much?
Not yet, but will do.
Didn't help. (It actually reduced throughput a little)
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Shawn Starr wrote:
When added with BUG(); it will hang /dev/dsp.
If the device is opened and we oops before closing it, subsequent
open attempts will fail (busy). If it hangs after a failed high
order allocation attempt without the BUG() insertion, that could
be called a
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Have you tried to use SWAP_SHIFT as 4 instead of 5 on a stock 2.4.2-ac5 to
see if the system still swaps out too much?
Not yet, but will do.
But what about swapping behaviour?
It still
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
That's one reason I tossed it out. I don't _think_ it should have any
negative effect on other loads, but a test run might find otherwise.
Writes
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
That's one reason I tossed it out. I don't _think_ it should have
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Chris Evans wrote:
Oh dear.. not more "vm design by waving hands in the air". Come on people,
improve the vm by careful profiling, tweaking and benching, not by
throwing random patches in that seem cool in theory.
Excuse me.. we're trying to have a _constructive_
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
The merging at the elevator level only works if the requests sent to
it are right next to each other on disk. This means that randomly
sending stuff to disk really DOES DESTROY PERFORMANCE and there's
nothing the elevator could ever hope to do
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
Yes and no. It takes microseconds to call the kernel for anything (time
getpid() ), so it seldom loops. All the kernel has to do is remember
Hi,
c0109286 system_call +22/40 (0.21) pid(4265)
c011c7e7 sys_gettimeofday +13/a8 (0.27) pid(4265)
1 - 100 of 5828 matches
Mail list logo
