lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.4.10-pre11
    On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:01:32AM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
    > Every single kernel since the dawn of 1.0 has died under OOM. Optimizing for

    try 2.2 once.

    > 2.2 doesn't matter any more. Any work I'm doing now is 2.4 based.

    It still matters for me. Critical servers with very high vm loads still
    have to run 2.2 to be stable and fast unfortunately.

    > I am being real. I don't expect single massive patches to ever be applied,
    > and am shocked I've even had to comment on this.

    Your aio patch is massive too.

    andrea@athlon:~ > wc -l aio-v2.4.0-20010123.diff
    2951 aio-v2.4.0-20010123.diff

    Now if you think I'm unreal and you are real, feed me the aio patch in
    self contained pieces of 10 lines each as you expect from me. And note
    that if they're not self contained they will just make my life harder.

    I'd be glad to be proved wrong and to get aio from you in small self
    contained pieces really, I planned to look into aio as one of the next
    things to merge in -aa but as usual the size of the patch makes things
    harder to merge due the larger implications. feel free to cc l-k, I'm
    sure other people is interested in aio too.

    > I want robust and not likely to corrupt my data randomly. The latter is more

    Forget the corruption. So far the only scary report I had is from
    Marcelo's 2G machine which is nothin compared to corruption, I don't
    have x86 machines with more than 1G, I tested alpha with 3G (but it has
    only 1 zone). I think Marcelo identified the problematic part before
    even testing it, so the fix should be fairly immediate, I'll address it
    ASAP unless he beats me on it (at the moment I'm still resynching).

    > That isn't the one I'm talking about. You changed the swapcache code. That
    > code is fragile. These changes aren't documented.

    I didn't changed the swapcache locking rules. I only fixed the VM to
    properly clear the dirty bit before freeing a page. Anybody freeing a
    page that is dirty was a plain vm bug. That was quite strightforward and
    correct change. Infact I was horrified by seeing __free_pages_ok
    clearing the dirty bit (not to talk about the referenced bit which was
    useless to change).

    > The vm rewrite was not posted in public, nor described in public. It just

    It obviously was. How do you think Linus got it? I said I didn't sent it
    to Linus privately.

    > appeared and got merged. Could you at least describe *ALL* of the changes?

    I'll be glad to do that over the time, right now I'm strict in time and
    I also needed to go to sleep a few hours ago so I won't inline the reply
    to this email right now, sorry.

    > And we agreed that this is 2.5 material.

    the O_DIRECT and blkdev in pagecache yes but definitely not the VM one
    but people needed those features in production anyways so that was good
    and they were well tested.

    Andrea
    -
    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 13:03    [W:0.035 / U:149.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site