Hi,
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 02:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nobody has noticed the now-fixed leak since 2.6.6 and this one appears to
> be 100x slower. Which is fortunate because this one is going to take a
> long time to fix. I'll poke at it some more.
OK, I'm now at the stage where I can kick
Hi,
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 02:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
Nobody has noticed the now-fixed leak since 2.6.6 and this one appears to
be 100x slower. Which is fortunate because this one is going to take a
long time to fix. I'll poke at it some more.
OK, I'm now at the stage where I can kick off
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I run the test(20 instances of fsx) with your patch on 2.6.12-rc1 with
> 512MB RAM (where I were able to constantly re-create the mem leak and
> lead to OOM before). The result is the kernel did not get into OOM after
> about 19 hours(before it took
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 13:04 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 18:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
>
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 13:04 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 18:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
2.6.12-rc1
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I run the test(20 instances of fsx) with your patch on 2.6.12-rc1 with
512MB RAM (where I were able to constantly re-create the mem leak and
lead to OOM before). The result is the kernel did not get into OOM after
about 19 hours(before it took about 9
Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Mingming Cao wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 16:23 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run
Mingming Cao wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 16:23 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 16:23 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 16:23 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
Mingming Cao wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 16:23 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Mingming Cao wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 16:23 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
> > > 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem,
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:11 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 16:17, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:53:04AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
>
> > The fsx command is:
> >
> > ./fsx -c 10 -n -r 4096 -w 4096 /mnt/test/foo1 &
> >
> > I also see fsx tests start to generating report about read bad data
> > about the tests
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
> > 2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about 10
> > hours the system hit OOM, and OOM keep killing
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I run into OOM problem again on 2.6.12-rc1. I run some(20) fsx tests on
2.6.12-rc1 kernel(and 2.6.11-mm4) on ext3 filesystem, after about 10
hours the system hit OOM, and OOM keep killing processes one
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 16:17, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:53:04AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
The fsx command is:
./fsx -c 10 -n -r 4096 -w 4096 /mnt/test/foo1
I also see fsx tests start to generating report about read bad data
about the tests have run for
Andrew Morton wrote:
"Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nothing beats poking around in a dead machine's guts with kgdb though.
Everyone his taste.
But I was surprised by
SwapTotal: 1052216 kB
SwapFree: 1045984 kB
Strange that processes are killed while lots of swap is
Andrew Morton wrote:
Martin J. Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nothing beats poking around in a dead machine's guts with kgdb though.
Everyone his taste.
But I was surprised by
SwapTotal: 1052216 kB
SwapFree: 1045984 kB
Strange that processes are killed while lots of swap is available.
I
20 matches
Mail list logo
