Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 18 Sep 2001 02:02:37 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11 |
| |
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 10:48:34PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > Ok, the big thing here is continued merging, this time with Andrea. > > > > > > > In one test here the VM changes seem fragile, and slower. > > > > Dual x86, 512 megs RAM, 512 megs swap. No highmem. > > > > The workload is: > > > > while true > > do > > /usr/src/ext3/tools/usemem 300 > > done > > > > (This just mallocs 300 megs, touches it then exits) > > > > in parallel with > > > > time /usr/src/ext3/tools/bash-shared-mapping -n 5 -t 3 foo 300000000 > > > > on ext2. > > > > (bash-shared-mapping is a tool which I wrote for ext3. It's one of the > > most aggressive VM/MM stress testers around, and has found a number of > > kernel bugs). > > > > On 2.4.9-ac10, the b-s-m run took 294 seconds. On 2.4.10-pre11 it > > took 330 seconds DESPITE the fact that one of the b-s-m instances > > was oom-killed quite early in the test. > > > > `vmstat' took about thirty seconds to start (this is usual), but > > was promptly killed, despite having (presumably) a small RSS. Instances > > of `usemem' were oom-killed quite frequently. In 2.4.9-ac10, nothing > > was oom-killed. > > should be the very same problem identified by Marcelo. I'm wondering why > I didn't reproduced here during testing, 512mbytes is not highmem and my > desktop has 512mbytes too and it didn't killed anything yet. As for the > slowdown there are a few localized places to look at. but let's fix the > oom first.
Try to run several memory hungry threads (thus hiding more pages).
- 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/
|  |