lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Kswapd madness in 2.4 kernels
    Date
    Status report:

    Due to dependencies, I didn't try the two recommended patches alone. I ran
    Andrea's 2.4.20-pre10aa1 kernel on the test load for one week. Low memory
    was conserved and kswapd never went out of control. Presumably,
    05_vm_16_active_free_zone_bhs-1 did the job for buffers, and the inode patch
    continued to work.

    Are there any plans on getting these into 2.4.21?


    On Thursday 24 October 2002 09:32 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > James Cleverdon wrote:
    > > Andrea_Archangeli-inode_highmem_imbalance.patch Type: text/x-diff
    >
    > That's in -aa kernels, is correct and is needed.
    >
    > > Andrew_Morton-2.4_VM_sucks._Again.patch Type: text/x-diff
    >
    > hmm. Someone seems to have renamed my nuke-buffers patch ;)
    >
    > My main concern is that this was a real quickie; it does a very
    > aggressive takedown of buffer_heads. Andrea's kernels contain a
    > patch which takes a very different approach. See
    > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.20pre
    >8aa2/05_vm_16_active_free_zone_bhs-1
    >
    > I don't think anyone has tried that patch in isolation though...
    >
    > If nuke-buffers passes testing and doesn't impact performance then
    > fine. A more cautious approach would be to use the active_free_zone_bhs
    > patch. If that proves inadequate then add in the "read" part of
    > nuke-buffers. That means dropping the fs/buffer.c part.
    > -


    On Friday 25 October 2002 09:57 am, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, James Cleverdon wrote:
    > > We have some customers with some fairly beefy servers. They can get the
    > > system into an unusable state that has been reported on lkml before.
    > >
    > > The two attached patches applied to 2.4.19 fix the problem on our test
    > > boxes.
    > >
    > > Are these patches still considered a good idea for 2.4? Is there
    > > something better I should be using?
    >
    > Yes, these patches are a good idea. I'm curious why they
    > haven't been submitted to Marcelo yet ;)
    >
    > Rik


    --
    James Cleverdon
    IBM xSeries Linux Solutions
    {jamesclv(Unix, preferred), cleverdj(Notes)} at us dot ibm dot com

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.023 / U:2.096 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site