Re: 2.6.3-mm3

[Nick Piggin]

Mike Fedyk wrote:

> Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > That is a much better sounding ratio. Of course that doesn't mean much
> > if performance is worse. Slab might be getting reclaimed a little bit
> > too hard vs pagecache now.
>
> I'll let you know.  My graphs are looking better, except for one 
> instance of Xvnc (for one user -- I'm still tracking that one down) 
> hitting a memory grabbing loop that made me kill it.

Try to get /proc/meminfo and a sysrq + T trace if something like
this happens.

> > > See:
> > > http://www.matchmail.com/stats/lrrd/matchmail.com/srv-lnx2600.matchmail.com-memory.html 
> > >
> > >
> > > Is there any way I can get the VM patches against 2.6.3?  I'm not 
> > > comfortable with running -mm3 on this production server, especially 
> > > seeing the "sync hang" bug.
> >
> > Well your server wasn't going too badly with 2.6.3, wasn't it? Might
> > as well just wait for them to get into the the tree.
>
>
> I might as well take out the third 512MB DIMM in that machine then...
>
> Any chance you could post a VM patch roll-up against 2.6.3 for little 
> ole me?

It is a bit easier said than done as you might have seen :P And
I'm laz^W^W I happen to not agree with one of Andrew's patches,
so it would go against all my principles ;)

IMO, shrink_slab-for-all-zones.patch and zone-balancing-fix.patch
should be all you need although they won't shrink the slab as
much as mm3. They should be pretty easy to port by hand.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/