Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:52:52 +1100 | | From | Nick Piggin <> | | Subject | Re: 2.6.3-mm3 |
| |
Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote: > >> >> >> That is a much better sounding ratio. Of course that doesn't mean much >> if performance is worse. Slab might be getting reclaimed a little bit >> too hard vs pagecache now. >> > > I'll let you know. My graphs are looking better, except for one > instance of Xvnc (for one user -- I'm still tracking that one down) > hitting a memory grabbing loop that made me kill it. >
Try to get /proc/meminfo and a sysrq + T trace if something like this happens.
>>> See: >>> http://www.matchmail.com/stats/lrrd/matchmail.com/srv-lnx2600.matchmail.com-memory.html >>> >>> >>> Is there any way I can get the VM patches against 2.6.3? I'm not >>> comfortable with running -mm3 on this production server, especially >>> seeing the "sync hang" bug. >>> >> >> Well your server wasn't going too badly with 2.6.3, wasn't it? Might >> as well just wait for them to get into the the tree. > > > I might as well take out the third 512MB DIMM in that machine then... > > Any chance you could post a VM patch roll-up against 2.6.3 for little > ole me? >
It is a bit easier said than done as you might have seen :P And I'm laz^W^W I happen to not agree with one of Andrew's patches, so it would go against all my principles ;)
IMO, shrink_slab-for-all-zones.patch and zone-balancing-fix.patch should be all you need although they won't shrink the slab as much as mm3. They should be pretty easy to port by hand.
- 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/
|  |