Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 6 Sep 2001 16:39:09 +0200 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: page_launder() on 2.4.9/10 issue |
| |
On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 15:01:49 +0100 Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@alex.org.uk> wrote:
> Yes, but this is because VM system's targets & pressure calcs do not > take into account fragmentation of the underlying physical memory. > IE, in theory you could have half your memory free, but > not be able to allocate a single 8k block. Nothing would cause > cache, or InactiveDirty stuff to be written.
Which is obviously not the right way to go. I guess we agree in that.
> You yourself proved this, by switching rsize,wsize to 1k and said > it all worked fine! (unless I misread your email).
Sorry, misunderstanding: I did not touch rsize/wsize. What I do is to lower fs action by not letting knfsd walk through the subtrees of a mounted fs. This leads to less allocs/frees by the fs layer which tend to fail and let knfs fail afterwards.
> [...] > I think what you want isn't more memory, its less > fragmented memory.
This is one important part for sure.
> Or an underlying system which can > cope with fragmentation.
Well, I'd rather prefer the cure than the dope :-)
Regards, Stephan
- 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/
|  |