Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:03:13 +0200 (SAST) | From | Craig Schlenter <> | Subject | Re: Trouble with 116 (was Re: Notebooks) |
| |
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Craig Schlenter wrote: > > > > I had my box 'lock-up' on me with a slightly modified 2.1.116. I'm running > > with the above line fixed and with the page ageing #ifdef set to 1 instead > > of 0. I have 32M RAM, 128M swap and had KDE, netscape, pine, winamp, kpm [snip] > Ok. This is a "good" lockup as far as the kernel is concerned. > > It probably means that the kernel is a bit too eager to return memory > allocation failures, which is something I didn't expect from the changes, > but should be a matter of turning a knob or two.
I think the kernel is fine ... I missed the ! in the statement below (thanks to Alan Modra):
if (!(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)) { /* changed */ current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC; do { retval = do_try_to_free_page(gfp_mask); if (!retval) break; count--; } while (count > 0); current->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC; /* changed */ }
My box has been up since doing this change (19 hours) and is 50 megs into swap and seems fine.
The way I read it, without the !, do_try_free_page would never have been called (unless something else tunes PF_MEMALLOC but I didn't spot anything). That would perhaps explain the problems I saw. Right?
I see 117 is out so I'll try that out in a minute or two ...
Thank you,
--Craig
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |