Re: Porting network driver to 2.4.0

2001-01-10 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Jonathan Earle wrote: Hey all, Still working with kernel 2.4.0-test9 (other things we use require it for now), and I was looking at a driver for a Znyx zx346q network card that I grabbed from the znyx.com website.

Re: Loopback almost-freeze?

2001-01-14 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: mmap()/VM problems in 2.4.0

2001-01-15 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: mmap()/VM problems in 2.4.0

2001-01-15 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: PROBLEM: 128M memory OK, but with 192M sound card es1391 trouble

2001-01-18 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [preview] Latest AMD VIA IDE drivers with UDMA100 support

2001-01-21 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Renaming lost+found

2001-01-28 Thread Mike Galbraith
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?

[SLUG] Re: Linux Disk Performance/File IO per process

2001-01-29 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: 2.4.4 kernel freeze for unknown reason

2001-05-11 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: 2.4.4 kernel freeze for unknown reason

2001-05-12 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: 2.4.4 kernel freeze for unknown reason

2001-05-12 Thread Mike Galbraith
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..

Re: [patch] swap-speedup-2.4.3-B3 (fwd)

2001-04-26 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [patch] swap-speedup-2.4.3-B3 (fwd)

2001-04-26 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [patch] swap-speedup-2.4.3-B3 (fwd)

2001-04-26 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules?

2001-05-13 Thread Mike Galbraith
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 opinion, is fine. If it isn't worth $15K to protect your code then it is worth so little to you that there really is no

Re: 2.4.4 kernel freeze for unknown reason

2001-05-13 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules?

2001-05-14 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [PATCH] Remove silly beep macro from pgtable.h

2001-05-15 Thread Mike Galbraith
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.

Re: [PATCH] Remove silly beep macro from pgtable.h

2001-05-15 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-17 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-17 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up

2001-05-18 Thread Mike Galbraith
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.

Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-18 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-18 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-18 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-18 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-19 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux 2.4.4 folks

2001-05-19 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

[RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-19 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-19 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-19 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-20 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-20 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-20 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-20 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-20 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-20 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up

2001-05-20 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Busy on BLKFLSBUF w/initrd

2001-05-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Busy on BLKFLSBUF w/initrd

2001-05-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Busy on BLKFLSBUF w/initrd

2001-05-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10

2001-05-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac17

2001-05-25 Thread Mike Galbraith
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 , (??

Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac17

2001-05-25 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac17

2001-05-27 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac17

2001-05-27 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux 2.4.5-ac2

2001-05-28 Thread Mike Galbraith
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.

Re: Linux 2.4.5-ac2

2001-05-28 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: On Mon, 28 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: 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

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM...

2001-05-28 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM

2001-05-30 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM

2001-05-30 Thread Mike Galbraith
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..

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM

2001-05-30 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM

2001-05-30 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM

2001-05-30 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Plain 2.4.5 VM... (and 2.4.5-ac3)

2001-05-30 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: test8-pre2 panics on reboot

2000-09-03 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote: Hi, Hi Tigran, Attempting to shutdown -r now I got an oops somewhere in send_sig_info() called from some of this new thread-group stuff, I haven't looked closely yet. I will, of course, setup the environment (vmware) for debugging this but I am

[the end?] RE: Availability of kdb

2000-09-07 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Mike Jagdis wrote: Q: Then why isn't kdb in the kernel? A: Uh... More to the point, why don't the people that want a kernel debugger maintain kdb and simply drop in the patch when they need it? If Jeff releases his debugger will anyone care enough to maintain it?

Re: Oops on boot with both 2.2.17 and 2.4.0t8p6

2000-09-10 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Oops on boot with both 2.2.17 and 2.4.0t8p6

2000-09-11 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Availability of kdb

2000-09-12 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Oops on boot with both 2.2.17 and 2.4.0t8p6

2000-09-17 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Rasmus Andersen wrote: Also (for Mike Galbraith): Why did the KDB make a difference in this case? I could not this any code it touched in the vicinity of pcibios_init(). But I probably did not look hard enough. I looked all over the place for an explanation. Elves

Re: Rik's VM contains a deadlock somewhere

2000-09-19 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Withdrawl of Open Source NDS Project/NTFS/M2FS forLinux

2000-09-05 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: 2.4.0-test9-pre4: __alloc_pages(...) try_again:

2000-09-20 Thread Mike Galbraith
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;

Re: Module unresolved symbol on 2.4.0-test8 SMP

2000-09-27 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: 2.4.0-t9p7 and mmap002 - freeze

2000-09-28 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: 2.4.0-test9-pre8

2000-10-02 Thread Mike Galbraith
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.

hdparm -d 1 fail test9-pre8

2000-10-02 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

[patch] bluesmoke not enabled in test9-pre9

2000-10-03 Thread Mike Galbraith
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 @@

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Withdrawl of Open Source NDS Project/NTFS/M2FS forLinux

2000-09-07 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Withdrawl of Open Source NDS Project/NTFS/M2FS forLinux

2000-09-06 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Withdrawl of Open Source NDS Project/NTFS/M2FS forLinux

2000-09-06 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Withdrawl of Open Source NDS Project/NTFS/M2FS forLinux

2000-09-06 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Withdrawl of Open Source NDS Project/NTFS/M2FS forLinux

2000-09-06 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Linux/MANOS Kernel Debugger

2000-09-06 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Andi Kleen wrote: The only sane way to do source level kernel debugging IMHO is to do it from a second machine (sane =~ without being in deadlock country), which also already works nicely using remote gdb + kgdb stub. Usermode kernel? -Mike - To unsubscribe

Re: 2.4.0-test10-pre3 Ooops

2000-10-18 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: 2.4.0-test10-pre3 Ooops

2000-10-18 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: Follow-up: [BUG] vmscan.c:102 on 2.4.0-test10p4

2000-10-19 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: MAP_NR

2000-10-20 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

question wrt context switching during disk i/o

2000-10-20 Thread Mike Galbraith
Hi, 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? procs memoryswap io system cpu r b w swpd free buff cache

Re: question wrt context switching during disk i/o

2000-10-21 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: question wrt context switching during disk i/o

2000-10-21 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [patch(?)] question wrt context switching during disk i/o

2000-10-21 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: question wrt context switching during disk i/o

2000-10-22 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: 2.4.0-test10pre5: still IDE lockups on HPT366 controller.

2000-10-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: 2.4.0-test10pre5: still IDE lockups on HPT366 controller.

2000-10-25 Thread Mike Galbraith
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.

Re: [ANOMALIES]: 2.4.2 - __alloc_pages: failed - Patch failed

2001-02-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: reiserfs: still problems with tail conversion

2001-02-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [ANOMALIES]: 2.4.2 - __alloc_pages: failed - Patch failed

2001-02-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
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:

Re: linux swap freeze STILL in 2.4.x

2001-02-25 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: linux swap freeze STILL in 2.4.x

2001-02-25 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: linux swap freeze STILL in 2.4.x

2001-02-25 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: linux swap freeze STILL in 2.4.x

2001-02-26 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: VM balancing problems under 2.4.2-ac1

2001-02-26 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [ANOMALIES]: 2.4.2 - __alloc_pages: failed - Causes more thenjust msgs

2001-02-27 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

[patch][rfc][rft] vm throughput 2.4.2-ac4

2001-02-27 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [patch][rfc][rft] vm throughput 2.4.2-ac4

2001-02-27 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

Re: [patch][rfc][rft] vm throughput 2.4.2-ac4

2001-02-27 Thread Mike Galbraith
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

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >