On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> I'm getting a notable increase in people sending me patches that
> do major things and should be 2.5 stuff. Please if you want to
> rewrite the VM completely, redesign the scsi layer and the like
> wait until 2.5.
VM folks can post their patches to [EMAIL PR
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2001-03-06T16:56:32,
>Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I'm getting a notable increase in people sending me patches that do major
> > things and should be 2.5 stuff. Please if you want to rewrite the VM completely,
> > redesign the scsi
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 02:22:58PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > I agree with Alan that we should keep all experimental stuff
> > out of 2.4,
>
> Depends on the impact. Experimental stuff in MM, FS, ...
[snip]
> But,
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
> With respect, Rik. You haven't finished the 2.4 VM yet.
>
> It needs better design description.
> Could you please take the time to raise a commentary patch
> which describes the underlying design intent?
OK, I'll go work on this...
You are right, t
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Is kswapd now running without lock_kernel()?
Indeed ...
> Then there is a race between swapout and ptrace:
> access_process_vm() accesses the page table entries, only protected with
> the mmap_sem semaphore and lock_kernel().
>
> Isn't
>
> spin_lo
Hi Linus,
how would you feel about having the block device layer 64-bit
capable, so Linux can have block devices of more than 2GB in
size ?
I know that 64-bit arithmetic is expensive on 32-bit platforms,
but I have the idea there is a way around that for people who
don't want 64-bit capable bloc
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> i found, that linux is missing a static low-priority scheduling class
> (or did i miss something? in this case feel free to stomp me into the
> ground :). it would be ideal for typical number-crunchers running in
> the background like the different
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > how would you feel about having the block device layer 64-bit
> > capable, so Linux can have block devices of more than 2GB in
> > size ?
>
> I already did this here, or something
Hi,
I've taken today to write some documentation for
include/linux/mm.h, as used in 2.4.x
Tonight and tomorrow I'll work on the documentation of other
files. Corrections, improvements and additions to this patch
are requested, lets try to get our stuff documented...
regards,
Rik
--
Linux MM bu
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 10:51 08/03/01, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:11:50AM +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > At 22:33 07/03/2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > * A page may belong to an inode's memory mapping. In this
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 22:33 07/03/2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> [snip]
> > typedef struct page {
> >+ struct list_head list; /* ->mapping has some page lists. */
> >+ struct address_space *mapping; /* The
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Boris Dragovic wrote:
> > did "these" apply only to the tasks, that actually hold a lock?
> > if not, then i don't like this idea, as it gives the processes
> > time for the only reason, that it _might_ hold a lock. this basically
> > undermines the idea of static classes. in
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> Only thing microsoft does not want to immediately go full open
> sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux people.
They don't need to release their source code to achieve that.
Rik
--
Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Boris Dragovic wrote:
> > Of course. Now we just need the code to determine when a task
> > is holding some kernel-side lock ;)
>
> couldn't it just be indicated on actual locking the resource?
It could, but I doubt we would want this overhead on the locking...
Rik
--
Linux
Hi,
I've changed the documentation of mm.h according to the feedback
I got about it yesterday and today and have added documentation
for swap.h
Tomorrow (or maybe even this evening) I will try to write some more
documentation, for other header files with MM structures...
regards,
Rik
--
Linux
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 21:10 08/03/2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >+ * There is also a hash table mapping (inode,offset) to the page
> >+ * in memory if present. The lists for this hash table use the fields
> >+ * page->next_hash and page->pprev
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Philipp Rumpf wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 06:10:16PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > --- linux-2.4.2-doc/include/linux/mm.h.orig Wed Mar 7 15:36:32 2001
> > +++ linux-2.4.2-doc/include/linux/mm.h Thu Mar 8 09:54:22 2001
> > @@ -39,32 +39,37 @@
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > Of course. Now we just need the code to determine when a task
> > > > is holding some kernel-side lock ;)
> > >
> > > couldn't it just be indicated on actual locking the res
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, george anzinger wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Boris Dragovic wrote:
> >
> > > > Of course. Now we just need the code to determine when a task
> > > > is holding some kernel-side lock ;)
> > >
> >
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > Just raise the priority whenever the task's in kernel mode. Problem
> > > solved.
> >
> > Remember that a task schedules itself out at the timer interrupt,
> > in kernel/sched.c::sch
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > The (trivial) patch below should fix this problem.
>
> It must be wrong.
>
> If we have a dirty page on the LRU lists, that page _must_ have
> a mapping.
Hmm, last I l
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > >
> > > The (trivial) patch below should fix this problem.
> >
> > It must be wrong.
> >
> > If we have a
Hi Linus, Daniel,
the (trivial) patch below fixes the drop-behind call in
generic_file_write to *only* do drop-behind if we've
written "past the end" of the page.
This way we have a better chance of still having partially
written pages in memory when we write to them again (eg. for
TUX logfiles)
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> It's logical that PageDirty should never be get for ramfs,
No. Not setting PageDirty will cause the system to move the
page to the inactive_clean list and happily reclaim your data.
We _have to_ use something like PageDirty for this, and
checking fo
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
> I think a dirty page without a writepage func seems a bit
> broken. How about we give ramfs a writepage func that just
> returns 1. That way nobody does any special if
> (ramfs_page(page)) kinds of tests...
This will lead to the ramfs pages staying on
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > I've made a small debugging patch that simply checks
> > for this illegal state in add_page_to_active_list and
> > add_page_to_inactive_dirty_list.
>
> I bet
Hi Linus, Alan, Stephen,
the patch below implements trivial RSS ulimit enforcement
for the 2.4 kernel.
The hard limit (rlim_max) is enforced as a true hard limit,
both at page fault time and again from kswapd. The soft
limit is "enforced" by simply scanning and swapping the
process more agressiv
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > If somebody (you? hint, hint) wants to do this,
>
> Ok, I'll do it because I love Tove.
Marcelo, you should buy some glasses ;)
Tove != Tux
It's ok and probably safe to love Tux, the nice cuddly
pe
Hi,
with the fix below, newer versions of modutils won't
complain about the (missing) symbol debug...
Could you please apply this for the next pre-patch?
thanks,
Rik
--
Hollywood goes for world dumbination,
Trailer at 11.
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.co
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Ari Heitner wrote:
> this has to be a dumb idea
Not really, you're just 8 (9?) years too late...
> The question is, why shouldn't it be possible to share the text
> segments of *all* running programs?
Linux uses shared mmap() for "loading" executables (well,
they're just m
Hi Linus,
I know this is probably not the birthday present you've been
hoping for, but here is a patch agains 2.4.0-test13-pre5 which
does the following - trivial - things:
1. trivially implement RSS ulimit support, with
p->rlim[RLIMIT_RSS].rlim_max treated as a hard limit
and .rlim_cur tr
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Wakko Warner wrote:
> I really hate to ask on the list, but if I was to buy a usb web
> cam, what would be a good choice?
The ov511-based cameras seem to work really nicely.
(this is a cheap chip, used in lots of different cameras)
And while we're on the topic of webcams:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 02:33:07PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> >Date:Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:17:22 +0100
> >From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Would you consider patches for any of these points?
> >
> > To me it seems just as imp
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 02:54:52PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:58:36 +0100
> >From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Why exactly a power of two ? To get rid of ->index ?
> >
> > To make things like "page -
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How it's got there etc etc etc at this stage isn't important.
> First how to fix it and how to make sure it doesn't happen again
> does concern me.
> I would REALLY appreciate it if this could be made to happen.
Send patches to Linus and Alan ?
Hi Linus, Alan,
Here is a second version of my patch ... it turned out that
fixing of the return value of try_to_swap_out() means that
swap_out_mm() doesn't unlock the mm->page_table_lock ...
The reason I didn't run into this bug yesterday was that the
RSS trimming took care of all the swapout I
On Fri, 28 Dec 2000, Mike Sklar wrote:
> If I wanted to adjust the rlim_cur value of a running
> processes, is there any sort of interface for that?
Hmmm, I don't think there is an interface to adjust the
per-process ulimit settings on-the-fly ...
Does anybody know if there's an interface for t
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 12:09:32PM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
> > # vgscan
> > vgscan: error while loading shared libraries: vgscan: undefined symbol:
> > lvm_remove_recursive
>
> This looks like an userspace compilation/installation problem of the new lvm
Hi Linus, Alan,
the following (trivial) patch fixes drop-behind behaviour
in generic_file_write to only drop fully written pages.
This increases performance in dbench by about 8% (as
measured by Daniel Phillips) and should get rid of the
logfile bottleneck Ingo Molnar found with the drop-behind
Hi Linus, Alan, Mike,
the following patch sets PF_MEMALLOC for the current task
in __alloc_pages() to avoid infinite recursion when we try
to free memory from __alloc_pages().
Please apply the patch below, which fixes this (embarrasing)
bug...
regards,
Rik
--
Hollywood goes for world dumbinati
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> the following (trivial) patch fixes drop-behind behaviour
> in generic_file_write to only drop fully written pages.
OK, please ignore. It is already in prerelease-diff
in the testing/ directory .. ;)
regards,
Rik
--
Hollywood goes for
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dr. David Gilbert wrote:
> I got wondering as to whether the various journaling file
> system activities were designed to survive the occasional
> unclean shutdown or were designed to allow the user to just pull
> the plug as a regular means of shutting down.
> Thoughts?
Hi,
I rediffed this trivial patch by Andrea (that went
into 2.2.19-pre5) which adds 2nd chance replacement
to the dentry cache, this should make our dcache
behave a little bit better than the current FIFO.
I know this probably isn't of any help under very low
and very high loads, but it should p
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > I rediffed this trivial patch by Andrea (that went
> > into 2.2.19-pre5) which adds 2nd chance replacement
> > to the dentry cache, this should make our dcache
> > be
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:59:16PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > I know this probably isn't of any help under very low
> > and very high loads, but it should provide a nice
> > improvement under medium loads...
>
>
Hi,
I have a strange problem (preventing me from testing the latest
2.4 kernel ... *sigh*) with my LVM setup.
The latest LVM utils + the latest kernel works just fine on my
test machine, but breaks horribly on my workstation. The only
difference I have found is that one PV of my VG has "NOT avai
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:47:39PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Not really. Under very high VFS loads we'd just scan
> > through the list twice and free the entries anyway.
>
> You're obviously wrong.
>
> The
On 4 Jan 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > + current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC;
> > try_to_free_pages(gfp_mask);
> > + current->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC;
>
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, David Ford wrote:
> Recently, about test 12 I believe, I started experiencing stalls.
> I believe it has to do with VM pressure but I'm not sure.
>
> (thank you reiserfs).
Probably an interaction between the fact that the
VM tries to write out pages but reiserfs blocking
thi
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Your latest changes to try_to_swap_out() does not seem to be
> obviously correct.
> Now refill_inactive() relies on the assumption that swap_out()
> returning 1 means we successfully freed a page:
The changes try_to_swap_out() has seen in recent
mont
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:09:01PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Ever heard of slocate / updatedb ?
>
> ever heard of somebody killing all other tasks while updatedb is
> running?
Other tasks tend not to stress the dcache
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> I agree that the return value of swap_out() is fairly meaningless. It's
> been fairly meaningless for a long time now, and it's entirely possible
> that the "while (swap_out())" loop should be just something
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, ludovic fernandez wrote:
> The following patch makes the kernel preemptable.
> It is against 2.4.0-prerelease on for i386 only.
> Comments are welcome.
I think this would be a nice thing to start testing
once 2.5 is forked off.
regards,
Rik
--
Hollywood goes for world dumb
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 01:00:28PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Other tasks tend not to stress the dcache like updatedb does,
> ^
> > leading to the effect that updatedb can "flush ou
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that the return value of swap_out() is fairly meaningless. It'
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> > Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > That would loop forever if the writepage func kept returning 1 though
[snip]
> > return 1 if the swap space is exhausted. So everybody using shared
> > a
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> This is totally offtopic. We were _not_ talking about other
> algorithms. We were _only_ talking about _when_ the 1 bit of
> aging I introduced with my algorithm improves performance at
> max. My answer is that the max performance improvement happen
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:59:49PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Unfortunately you seem to ignore my arguments, so lets
>
> I've not ignored them, as said they were either obviously wrong
> of offtopic.
Without givin
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Evan Thompson wrote:
> I hear about the 2.4.0 release. I have, in my mailbox, many
> messages titled "Re: And oh, btw...", BUT NO ORIGINAL MESSAGE!
> What happened? Is my stupid mailserver selective or something?
>
> Anyways. My bug report is: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] does
> no
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote:
> While I understand the reasoning behind this, and might do the
> same thing if I was in your position, I feel it may be a
> mistake. I personaly do not trust the 2.4.x kernel entirely yet,
> and would prefer to wait for 2.4.1 or 2.4.2 before upgrading
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Brad Hartin wrote:
> Jan 4 00:06:05 osprey kernel: VM: do_try_to_free_pages failed for X...
> Jan 4 00:06:06 osprey last message repeated 6 times
This bug is fixed in 2.2.19-pre2 and later.
Oh, and 2.4.0 of course doesn't have it either ;)
[If you don't mind, please help t
Hi Ted,
in the last few weeks quite a few of the bugs listed on your
(excellent) http://linux24.sourceforge.net/ have been fixed.
Here is a list of the VM bugs that are on your list and can
be moved to the "fixed" category:
* truncate->invalidate_inode_pages removes mapping information from
m
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Chris Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> > > Could someone create one single patch for the 2.4.0 ?
> > >
> > I put all the code into CVS, and Yura is making the official patch now.
>
> Since 2.4.0 final should fix a few i/o performance issues
> (particu
Hi,
here is a TODO list for the memory management area of the
Linux kernel, with both trivial things that could be done
for later 2.4 releases and more complex things that really
have to be 2.5 things.
Most of these can be found on http://linux24.sourceforge.net/ too
Trivial stuff:
* VM: better
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
> Is ext2 upgradable to reiserfs or ext3?
> If so, is it transparent..or like a umount, convert, mount..or
> do you like have to import to a whole new partition?
ext2 is upgradable to ext3; after you have created a journal
on the filesystem (either
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > here is a TODO list for the memory management area of the
> > Linux kernel, with both trivial things that could be done
> > for later 2.4 releases and more complex things that r
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Friday, January 05, 2001 01:43:07 PM -0200 Marcelo Tosatti
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Here's the latest version of the patch, against 2.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > Also, you do not want the writer to block on writing out buffers
> > if bdflush could write them out asynchronously while the dirty
> > buffer producer can w
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 02:56:40PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > * VM: experiment with different active lists / aging pages
> > > of different ages at different rates + other page replacement
> > > improvements
> > > * VM: Quality of Service
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 07:20:24PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > * VM: Use kiobuf IO in VM instead buffer_head IO.
> > >
> > > I'd vote for killing both bufer_head and kiobuf from VM.
> > > Lokk
On 7 Jan 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The following bugs _could_ be fixed ... I'm not 100% certain
> > but they're probably gone (could somebody confirm/deny?):
> >
> > * mm->r
On 6 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In short, releasing 2.4.0 does not open up the floor to just
> about anything. In fact, to some degree it will probably make
> patches _less_ likely to be accepted than before, at least for a
> while.
I think this is an excellent idea. To help with this I'
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, david wrote:
> can i rewrite the mm system in kernel's 2.2.18 to add new and
> needed functions or may be it can be a compile option old (mm
> system or new mm system) ?
Upgrade to 2.4.0 ;)
But yes, you can rewrite 2.2.18 VM all you want, that's
what the GPL is for...
Btw,
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Jim Olsen wrote:
> Hi... I have a question or two that would help me clear up a bit of the fuzz
> I have relating to the VM: do_try_to_free_pages issue.
> My question is, exactly which kernel should I use in order to
> rid my server of this VM issue?
2.2: 2.2.19pre2 and
Hi,
I posted a patch for the 2.4.0 VM subsystem today which
includes the following things:
- implement RSS ulimit enforcement
- make the page aging strategy sysctl tunable
(no aging, exponential decay, linear decay)
- don't use the page age in try_to_swap_out(), since that
function doe
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > -ac has the rather extended ramfs with resource limits and stuff. That one
> > also has rather more extended bugs 8). AFAIK none of those are in the vanilla
> > ramfs code
> This is actually where I agree with
On 7 Jan 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> The following patch cleans up some obsolete structures from the
> mm & proc code.
>
> Beside that it also fixes what I think is a bug:
>
> if ((rw == WRITE) && atomic_read(&nr_async_pages) >
>pager_daemon.swap_cluster * (1 <
On 7 Jan 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> OK, maybe I was too fast in concluding with that change. I'm
> still trying to find out why is MM working bad in some
> circumstances (see my other email to the list).
>
> Anyway, I would than suggest to introduce another /proc entry
> and call it appropria
On 7 Jan 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> Things go berzerk if you have one big process whose working set
> is around your physical memory size.
"go berzerk" in what way? Does the system cause lots of extra
swap IO and does it make the system thrash where 2.2 didn't
even touch the disk ?
> Final
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, John O'Donnell wrote:
> What does this message mean in my dmesg output?
>
> __alloc_pages: 3-order allocation failed.
It means something in the kernel is trying to allocate an
area of 8 physically contiguous pages, but that wasn't
available so the allocation failed...
This
er?]
(my message)
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 20:07:52 -0200 (BRDT)
From: Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: John O'Donnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.4.0: __alloc_pages: 3-order allocation failed.
(the bounce)
- The following ad
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, John O'Donnell wrote:
> Only on my company's e-mail server. My company typically gets "zero"
> emails from outside the US. If I get a piece of spam (sorry they are
> typically from outside the US), I just block the entire .com.br domain.
> I get far less SPAM now!
Remind me
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
> Well, here is a workload that performs worse on 2.4.0 than on 2.2.19pre,
> The typical machine is a dual Intel box with 512MB RAM and 512MB swap.
How does 2.4 perform when you add an extra GB of swap ?
2.4 keeps dirty pages in the swap cache, so you w
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> About the RSS ulimit proposal, have we resolved the correctness
> of counting RSS in a process?
I have not taken^Whad the time to check the kernel tree
and see if the RSS counting has indeed been made safe
everywhere.
regards,
Rik
--
Virtual memory
On 7 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That doesn't resolve the "2.4.x behaves badly" thing, though.
>
> I've seen that one myself, and it seems to be simply due to the
> fact that we're usually so good at gettign memory from
> page_launder() that we never bother to try to swap stuff out.
> And
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Sergey E. Volkov wrote:
> I have a problem with 2.4.0
>
> I'm testing Informix IIF-2000 database server running on dual
> Intel Pentium II - 233. When I run 'make -j30 bzImage' in the
> kernel source, my Linux box hangs without any messages.
> Informix allocate about to 50%
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > We need a check in deactivate_page() to prevent the kernel
> > from moving pages from locked shared memory segments to the
> > inactive_dirty list.
> >
> > Christop
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:37:47PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Once we are sure 2.4 is stable for just about anybody I
> > will submit some of the really trivial enhancements for
> > inclusion; all non-trivial patches I will maintain
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
>From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>don't you think the writepage file operation is rather hackish?
>
> Not at all, it's simply direct sendfile support. It does
> not try to be any fancier than that.
I really think the zerocopy net
On 9 Jan 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Now if 2.4 has worse _performance_ than 2.2 due to one
> > reason or another, that I'd like to hear about ;)
> >
>
> Oh, well, it seems that I was wrong. :)
>
>
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> PF_RSSTRIM is not declared anywhere either in the linux-2.4.0
> sources or in the 2.4.0-vmbigpatch.
Humm, I seem to have forgotten a `cp $i $i.orig` ;)
Should be fixed in a newer patch.
regards,
--
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can'
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, David Ford wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, John O'Donnell wrote:
> >
> > > Only on my company's e-mail server. My company typically gets "zero"
> > > emails from outside the US. If I get a piece of spa
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote:
> You can see, mmap() read performance dropped significantly as
> well as read() one raised. Plus, "interactivity" of 2.4.0 system
> was much worse during mmap'ed test, than using read()
> (everything was quite smooth here). 2.4.0-test7 was badly
> in
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Simple. Because I stated before that I DON'T even want the
> networking to use kiobufs in lower layers. My whole argument is
> to pass a kiovec into the fileop instead of a page, because it
> makes sense for other drivers to use multiple pages,
N
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I looked at it a year or two ago myself, and came to the
> conclusion that I don't want to blow up our page table size by a
> factor of three or more, so I'm not personally interested any
> more. Maybe somebody else comes up with a better way to do it,
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:46:07AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > My impression with the MM stuff is that everyone except linux is
> > trying hard to clone BSD instead of thinking through the issues
> > ourselves.
>
> I wasn't even thinking abou
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Call it 'pinned'... the pinned list would have pages with use
> count = 2 or more. A page gets off the pinned list when its use
> count goes to 1 in put_page.
I don't even want to start thinking about how this would
screw up the (already fragile) pag
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > (This is why I worked so hard at getting the PageDirty semantics right in
> > the last two months or so - and why I released 2.4.0 when I did. Getting
> > PageDirty right was the big step to make all of the VM stuff possible in
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> I liked them a lot, and I bet I'm not alone. Are they gone for
> good, or have you just ceased writing them for test kernels?
I like them a lot too.
Without the changelogs Linus is just a "black box"
which outputs random patches.
With a good chan
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
> is it possible with linux2.4 to limit the relative CPU time
> per process or per UID?
The (more complex) userbeans patches are IMHO something that
should wait for 2.5, but I will be "porting" my fair share
scheduler to 2.4 RSN.
The fair share scheduler
301 - 400 of 817 matches
Mail list logo
