On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:07:33 +
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Gwe, 2005-02-18 at 16:55, Cliff White wrote:
> > Okay, with just vm.overcommit=2, things are still bad:
> > http://khack.osdl.org/stp/300854/logs/TestRunFailed.console.log.txt
> >
> > Suggestion for vm.overcommit_ratio ?
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:07:33 +
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Gwe, 2005-02-18 at 16:55, Cliff White wrote:
Okay, with just vm.overcommit=2, things are still bad:
http://khack.osdl.org/stp/300854/logs/TestRunFailed.console.log.txt
Suggestion for vm.overcommit_ratio ?
Or
On Gwe, 2005-02-18 at 16:55, Cliff White wrote:
> Okay, with just vm.overcommit=2, things are still bad:
> http://khack.osdl.org/stp/300854/logs/TestRunFailed.console.log.txt
>
> Suggestion for vm.overcommit_ratio ?
> Or should i repeat with later -ac ?
Thats showing up problems in the core code
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 02:57:07PM -0800, cliff white wrote:
>
> > Running 2.6.10-ac10 on the STP 1-CPU machines, we don't seem to be able to
> complete
> > a kernbench run without hitting the OOM-killer. ( kernbench is multiple ker
> nel compiles,
> > of course ) Machine is 800 mhz PIII with
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 02:57:07PM -0800, cliff white wrote:
Running 2.6.10-ac10 on the STP 1-CPU machines, we don't seem to be able to
complete
a kernbench run without hitting the OOM-killer. ( kernbench is multiple ker
nel compiles,
of course ) Machine is 800 mhz PIII with 1GB
On Gwe, 2005-02-18 at 16:55, Cliff White wrote:
Okay, with just vm.overcommit=2, things are still bad:
http://khack.osdl.org/stp/300854/logs/TestRunFailed.console.log.txt
Suggestion for vm.overcommit_ratio ?
Or should i repeat with later -ac ?
Thats showing up problems in the core code
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:12:06 -0200
Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 02:57:07PM -0800, cliff white wrote:
> >
> > Running 2.6.10-ac10 on the STP 1-CPU machines, we don't seem to be able to
> > complete
> > a kernbench run without hitting the OOM-killer. (
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:12:06 -0200
Marcelo Tosatti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 02:57:07PM -0800, cliff white wrote:
Running 2.6.10-ac10 on the STP 1-CPU machines, we don't seem to be able to
complete
a kernbench run without hitting the OOM-killer. ( kernbench is
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 02:57:07PM -0800, cliff white wrote:
>
> Running 2.6.10-ac10 on the STP 1-CPU machines, we don't seem to be able to
> complete
> a kernbench run without hitting the OOM-killer. ( kernbench is multiple
> kernel compiles,
> of course ) Machine is 800 mhz PIII with 1GB
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 02:57:07PM -0800, cliff white wrote:
Running 2.6.10-ac10 on the STP 1-CPU machines, we don't seem to be able to
complete
a kernbench run without hitting the OOM-killer. ( kernbench is multiple
kernel compiles,
of course ) Machine is 800 mhz PIII with 1GB memory. We
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 02:57:07PM -0800, cliff white wrote:
> Running 2.6.10-ac10 on the STP 1-CPU machines, we don't seem to be able to
> complete
> a kernbench run without hitting the OOM-killer. ( kernbench is multiple
> kernel compiles,
> of course ) Machine is 800 mhz PIII with 1GB
Running 2.6.10-ac10 on the STP 1-CPU machines, we don't seem to be able to
complete
a kernbench run without hitting the OOM-killer. ( kernbench is multiple kernel
compiles,
of course ) Machine is 800 mhz PIII with 1GB memory. We reduce memory for some
of the runs.
Typical results:
stp1-001
Running 2.6.10-ac10 on the STP 1-CPU machines, we don't seem to be able to
complete
a kernbench run without hitting the OOM-killer. ( kernbench is multiple kernel
compiles,
of course ) Machine is 800 mhz PIII with 1GB memory. We reduce memory for some
of the runs.
Typical results:
stp1-001
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 02:57:07PM -0800, cliff white wrote:
Running 2.6.10-ac10 on the STP 1-CPU machines, we don't seem to be able to
complete
a kernbench run without hitting the OOM-killer. ( kernbench is multiple
kernel compiles,
of course ) Machine is 800 mhz PIII with 1GB memory. We
14 matches
Mail list logo
