Re: 2.4.0-t9p7 and mmap002 - freeze

2000-09-29 Thread Rik van Riel
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Another thing I'm curious about is increasing memory pressure in > the event of an allocation failure (retry). Why do we do that? We were short on free memory, so kswapd should work /harder/ to keep up with the current load. > P.S. in buffer.c, we

Re: 2.4.0-t9p7 and mmap002 - freeze

2000-09-28 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > > > > > Tried latest patch with the same result - freeze... > > > > Ditto. > > I'm finally back from Linux Kongress and Linux Expo and > will look at the latest

Re: 2.4.0-t9p7 and mmap002 - freeze

2000-09-28 Thread Rik van Riel
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > > > Tried latest patch with the same result - freeze... > > Ditto. I'm finally back from Linux Kongress and Linux Expo and will look at the latest tree and integrate the fixes I made while on the road later

Re: 2.4.0-t9p7 and mmap002 - freeze

2000-09-27 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > Hi, > > Tried latest patch with the same result - freeze... Ditto. > No extra patches added. Ditto. > running from console as root > mmap002 from memtest-0.0.3 > with RAMSIZE defined as 90 MB (I have 96MB) > after a while with heavy disk access (th

2.4.0-t9p7 and mmap002 - freeze

2000-09-27 Thread Roger Larsson
Hi, Tried latest patch with the same result - freeze... No extra patches added. running from console as root mmap002 from memtest-0.0.3 with RAMSIZE defined as 90 MB (I have 96MB) after a while with heavy disk access (thrashing?) the drive becomes silent - no more progress... [if you can not re