Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:47:58 +0200 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: "Cached" grows and grows and grows... |
| |
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 23:15:36 +0100 (BST) Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > To tell you the honest truth: you are not alone in cosmos (with this problem) > > ;-) > > To give you that explicit hint for saving money: do not buy mem, it will be > > eaten up by recent kernels without any performance gain or other positive > > impact whatsoever. > > Pick up a 2.4.9-ac kernel, and you shouldnt be seeing the problem (I say > shouldnt, I'm not 100% convinced its all under control)
VERY FUNNY, Alan!
2.4.9-ac9: __alloc_pages:
/* No luck.. */ // printk(KERN_ERR "__alloc_pages: %lu-order allocation failed.\n", order) return NULL;
If there is no printk, you will obviously not notice the problem. You can bet your car on not "seeing the problem". > > Try using 2.4.4, if it doesn't succeed, forget 2.4 and use 2.2.19. That works. > > Unfortunately you may have to completely reinstall your system when going back > > to 2.2. > > That should not be needed at all.
Well, as long as you do not use any features that made you install 2.4 before, e.g. files > 2GB and some others. Of course, if you do not use these, you might be better of with 2.2 anyway.
That was not a very convincing comment, Alan. But I must admit one thing: 2.4.9-ac9 runs smoother in my test. There are no delays experienced during which the system desperately seeks mem. In fact I can see a lot of inact_clean nearly all the time (a lot means 200-600 MB). Nevertheless there _is_ a problem, because nfs still fails on low mem situation when option "no_subtree_check" is _off_/not used.
I will have some closer looks on ac tree.
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/
|  |