Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:44:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:44:30 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:22789 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:44:29 -0400 Message-ID: <3D0F8D40.2FC13433@zip.com.au> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:42:58 -0700 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.19-pre8 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk CC: "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.4 VM sucks. Again References: <200205241004.g4OA4Ul28364@mail.pronto.tv> <1572079531.1022225730@[10.10.2.3]> <3CEE954F.9CB99816@zip.com.au> <200206181326.27860.roy@karlsbakk.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2006 Lines: 54 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > > > > Any plans to merge this into the main kernel, giving a choice > > > > (in config or /proc) to enable this? > > > > > > I don't think Andrew is ready to submit this yet ... before anything > > > gets merged back, it'd be very worthwhile testing the relative > > > performance of both solutions ... the more testers we have the > > > better ;-) > > > > Cripes no. It's pretty experimental. Andrea spotted a bug, too. Fixed > > version is below. > > Any more plans? > The patch has been working great for some time now, and I'd really like to see > this in the official tree Roy, all we know is that "nuke-buffers stops your machine from locking up". But we don't know why your machine locks up in the first place. This just isn't sufficient grounds to apply it! We need to know exactly why your kernel is failing. We don't know what the bug is. You have two gigabytes of RAM, yes? It's very weird that stripping buffers prevents a lockup on a machine with such a small highmem/lowmem ratio. I'll have yet another shot at reproducing it. So, again, could you please tell me *exactly*, in great deatail, what I need to do to reproduce this problem? - memory size - number of CPUs - IO system - kernel version, any applied patches, compiler version - exact sequence of commands - anything else you can think of Have you been able to reproduce the failure on any other machine? > Also - I guess this patch will eliminate any > caching whatsoever, and therefore not really a good thing for file or web > servers? No, not at all. All the pagecache is still there - the patch just throws away the buffer_heads which are attached to those pagecache pages. The 2.5 kernel does it tons better. Have you tried it? - - 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/