![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Mike Fedyk wrote: > >> Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>> shrink_slab-for-all-zones.patch >>> vm: scan slab in response to highmem scanning >>> >>> zone-balancing-fix.patch >>> vmscan: zone balancing fix >> >> >> >> On 2.6.3 + [1] + nfsd-lofft.patch running on a 1GB ram file server. >> I have noticed two related issues. >> >> First, under 2.6.3 it averages about 90MB[2] anon memory, and 30MB >> with the -mm4 vm (the rest is in swap cache). This could balance out >> on the normal non-idle week-day load though... >> >> Second the -mm4 vm, there is a lot more swapping[3] going on during >> the daily updatedb, and backup runs that are performed on this machine. >> I'd have to call this second issue a regression, but I want to run it >> a couple more days to see if it gets any better (unless you agree of >> course). >> > > There are a few things backed out now in 2.6.4-rc1-mm1, and quite a > few other changes. I hope we can trouble you to test 2.6.4-rc1-mm1? Yes, I saw that, but since I wasn't using the new code, I chose to keep it in the "-mm4" thread. :-D I'll backport it to 2.6.3 if it doesn't patch with "-F3"... > Tell me, do you have highmem enabled on this system? If so, swapping Yes, to get that extra 128MB ram. :) > might be explained by the batching patch. With it, a small highmem > zone could possibly place quite a lot more pressure on a large > ZONE_NORMAL. > > 2.6.4-rc1-mm1 sould do much better here. OK, I'll give that one a shot Monday or Tuesday night. So, I'll merge up 2.6.3 + "vm of rc1-mm1" and tell you guys what I see. Are the graphs helpful at all? Mike - 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 13:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||