Hi!
> > IMVHO every developer involved in memory-management (and indeed, any
> > software development; the authors of ntpd comes in mind here) should
> > have a 386 with 4MB of RAM and some 16MB of swap. Nowadays I have the
> > luxury of a 486 with 8MB of RAM and 32MB of swap as a firewall, but i
Hi!
> > IMVHO every developer involved in memory-management (and indeed, any
> > software development; the authors of ntpd comes in mind here) should
> > have a 386 with 4MB of RAM and some 16MB of swap. Nowadays I have the
> > luxury of a 486 with 8MB of RAM and 32MB of swap as a firewall, but i
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 05:51:50PM +, Scott Anderson wrote:
> David Weinehall wrote:
> > IMVHO every developer involved in memory-management (and indeed, any
> > software development; the authors of ntpd comes in mind here) should
> > have a 386 with 4MB of RAM and some 16MB of swap. Nowadays
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > OK.. let's forget about throughput for a moment and consider
> > > > those annoying reports of 0 order allocations failing :)
> > >
> > > Those are ok. All failing 0 order allocations are either
> > > atomic allocations or GFP_BUFFER allocations.
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > >
> > > > Remember that inactive_clean pages are always immediately
> > > > reclaimable by __alloc_pages(), if you
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > Remember that inactive_clean pages are always immediately
> > > reclaimable by __alloc_pages(), if you measured a performance
> > > difference by freeing pa
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > Remember that inactive_clean pages are always immediately
> > reclaimable by __alloc_pages(), if you measured a performance
> > difference by freeing pages in a different way I'm pretty sure
> > it's a side
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Remember that inactive_clean pages are always immediately
> reclaimable by __alloc_pages(), if you measured a performance
> difference by freeing pages in a different way I'm pretty sure
> it's a side effect of something else. What that something
> else
David Weinehall wrote:
> IMVHO every developer involved in memory-management (and indeed, any
> software development; the authors of ntpd comes in mind here) should
> have a 386 with 4MB of RAM and some 16MB of swap. Nowadays I have the
> luxury of a 486 with 8MB of RAM and 32MB of swap as a firew
>Time to hunt around for a 386 or 486 which is limited to such
>a small amount of RAM ;)
I've got an old knackered 486DX/33 with 8Mb RAM (in 30-pin SIMMs, woohoo!),
a flat CMOS battery, a 2Gb Maxtor HD that needs a low-level format every
year, and no case. It isn't running anything right now...
On Mon, 21 May 2001, David Weinehall wrote:
> IMVHO every developer involved in memory-management (and indeed, any
> software development; the authors of ntpd comes in mind here) should
> have a 386 with 4MB of RAM and some 16MB of swap. Nowadays I have the
> luxury of a 486 with 8MB of RAM and 3
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 11:54:09PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > You're right. It should never dump too much data at once. OTOH, if
> > > those cleaned pages are really old (front of reclaim list), there's no
> > > value in keeping them either. Maybe there should be a slow bleed for
Hi!
> > You're right. It should never dump too much data at once. OTOH, if
> > those cleaned pages are really old (front of reclaim list), there's no
> > value in keeping them either. Maybe there should be a slow bleed for
> > mostly idle or lightly loaded conditions.
>
> If you don't think i
Hi,
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 07:04:31AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > Looking at the locking and trying to think SMP (grunt) though, I
> > don't like the thought of taking two locks for each page until
>
> > 100%. The data in that block is toast
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > @@ -1054,7 +1033,7 @@
> > if (!zone->size)
> > continue;
> >
> > - while (zone->free_pages < zone->pages_low) {
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On 20 May 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
>
> > > Also in all recent kernels, if the machine is swapping, swap cache
> > > grows without limits and is hard to recycle, but then again that is
> > > a known proble
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> @@ -1054,7 +1033,7 @@
> if (!zone->size)
> continue;
>
> - while (zone->free_pages < zone->pages_low) {
> + while (zone->free
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On 20 May 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> > Also in all recent kernels, if the machine is swapping, swap cache
> > grows without limits and is hard to recycle, but then again that is
> > a known problem.
>
> This one bugs me. I do not see that and can'
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Also in all recent kernels, if the machine is swapping, swap cache
> > grows without limits and is hard to recycle, but then again that is
> > a known problem.
>
> This one bugs me. I do not see that and can't understand why.
To throw away dirty
On 20 May 2001, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> >
> > > That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are
> > > trying to solve is fundamentally dynamic in most cases (which is
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 05:29:49AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I'm not sure why that helps. I didn't put it in as a trick or
> > anything though. I put it in because it didn't seem like a
> > good idea to ever have more cleaned pages than free pages
Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are
> > trying to solve is fundamentally dynamic in most cases (which is also
> > why magic numbers tend to suck in the VM.)
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 05:29:49AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I'm not sure why that helps. I didn't put it in as a trick or
> anything though. I put it in because it didn't seem like a
> good idea to ever have more cleaned pages than free pages at a
> time when we're yammering for help.. so
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> but ;-)
>
> Looking at the locking and trying to think SMP (grunt) though, I
> don't like the thought of taking two locks for each page until
> 100%. The data in that block is toast anyway. A big hairy SMP
> box has to feel reclaim_page(). (they pr
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > You're right. It should never dump too much data at once. OTOH, if
> > those cleaned pages are really old (front of reclaim list), there's no
> > value in keeping them either. Maybe there should be a sl
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> You're right. It should never dump too much data at once. OTOH, if
> those cleaned pages are really old (front of reclaim list), there's no
> value in keeping them either. Maybe there should be a slow bleed for
> mostly idle or lightly loaded condit
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure why that helps. I didn't put it in as a trick or
> > anything though. I put it in because it didn't seem like a
> > good idea to ever have more cleaned pages than free pages at a
> > time
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are
> > > > trying to solve is fu
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> > > Three back to back make -j 30 runs for three different kernels.
> > > Swap cache numbers are taken immediately after last completion.
> >
> > The performance increase is nice, though. Do you see similar
> > changes in different kinds of workloads ?
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> >
> > > That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are
> > > trying to solve is fundamentally dynamic in most cases (which is also
> > >
> > Three back to back make -j 30 runs for three different kernels.
> > Swap cache numbers are taken immediately after last completion.
>
> The performance increase is nice, though. Do you see similar
> changes in different kinds of workloads ?
I you have a patch against 2.4.4-ac11 I will do som
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are
> > trying to solve is fundamentally dynamic in most cases (which is also
> > why magic numbers tend to suck in the VM.)
>
> Magi
Hi,
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are
> trying to solve is fundamentally dynamic in most cases (which is also
> why magic numbers tend to suck in the VM.)
Magic numbers might be sucking some performance right no
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:44:39PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > This is the core of why we cannot (IMHO) have a discussion
> > > of whether a patch introducing new VM tunables can go in:
> > > th
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:44:39PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > This is the core of why we cannot (IMHO) have a discussion
> > of whether a patch introducing new VM tunables can go in:
> > there is no clear overview of exactly what woul
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:12:32PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Basic rule for VM: once you start swapping, you cannot
> win; All you can do is make sure no situation loses
> really badly and most situations perform reasonably.
Do you mean paging in general or thrashing?
I always thought: pagin
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:44:39PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > This is the core of why we cannot (IMHO) have a discussion
> > of whether a patch introducing new VM tunables can go in:
> > there is no clear overview of exactly what would need t
Hi,
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:44:39PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> This is the core of why we cannot (IMHO) have a discussion
> of whether a patch introducing new VM tunables can go in:
> there is no clear overview of exactly what would need to be
> tunable and how it would help.
It's worse th
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> While I'd love to have more control, I can't say I have a clear
> picture of exactly how I'd like those knobs to look. I always
> start out trying to get it to seek the right behavior.. :) and
> end up fighting so many different fires I get lost in th
> Anyway, the bug is in 2.4.4, not in 2.4.4-ac10: I am really sorry for
> having loosing your time. With 2.4.4-ac9 with my fdomain, everything is
> also working great ;-)
Great.
[Crosses another bug off]
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:23:03PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> >
> > > Rik: Would you take patches for such a tradeoff sysctl?
> >
> > "such a tradeoff" ?
> >
> > While this sounds reasonable, I have to point out
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:23:03PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > "such a tradeoff" ?
> >
> > While this sounds reasonable, I have to point out that
> > up to now nobody has described exactly WHAT tradeoff
> > they'd like to make tunable and why...
>
> Amo
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
>
> > Rik: Would you take patches for such a tradeoff sysctl?
>
> "such a tradeoff" ?
>
> While this sounds reasonable, I have to point out that
> up to now nobody has described exactly WHAT tradeoff
> they'd like t
Thus spake Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Can you boot a kernel without fdomain.c compiled in next
Yes, but I am too stupid: there were a faillure in my
patch-2.4.4-ac10.bz2, which is 0 bits so I have bunzip -c
patch-2.4.4-ac10.bz2|patch -p1 -s with an empty file :-((
That mean I compiled
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:23:03PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
>
> > Rik: Would you take patches for such a tradeoff sysctl?
>
> "such a tradeoff" ?
>
> While this sounds reasonable, I have to point out that
> up to now nobody has described exactly WHAT t
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> Rik: Would you take patches for such a tradeoff sysctl?
"such a tradeoff" ?
While this sounds reasonable, I have to point out that
up to now nobody has described exactly WHAT tradeoff
they'd like to make tunable and why...
I'm not against making things
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:45:15PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Yes, ~exactly! I chose 30 tasks because they almost do (tool/userland
> dependant.. must recalibrate often) fit. The bitch is to get the vm
> to automagically detect the rss/cache munch tradeoff point without all
> the manual help
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up,
> > > > but it swaps too heavily. It'
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up,
> > > but it swaps too heavily. It's a little too conservative about
> > > releasing cach
Thus spake Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > SCSI subsystem driver Revision: 1.00
> > PCI: Found IRQ 11 for device 00:0b.0
> > Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 000
> > printing eip:
>
> What scsi drivers do you have and which are on IRQ 11
I have two:
00:0
David Balazic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What old old binutils ?
> Isn't there a clear requirement for a minimum binutils version in
> Documentation/Changes ( or maybe it is README ... ) ?
Yes there is. From the Changes file:
o binutils 2.9.1.0.25 # ld -v
--
Andr
Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> >
> > gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.4-ac/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2
>-fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe
> -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 -malign-functions=4 -c -o apm.o apm.c
> > {standard input}: Assembler messag
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > Has anyone benched 2.4.5pre3 vs 2.4.4 vs. ?
> >
> > Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up,
> > but it swaps too heavily. It's a little too conservative about
> > releasing cach
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Sasi Peter wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > Or are you just comparing with 2.2 and you'd rather
> > have 2.2 performance? ;)
>
> Actually, yes. Doing fileserving with Samba, and also using the box
> interactively feels better with 2.2, and also the ave
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Or are you just comparing with 2.2 and you'd rather
> have 2.2 performance? ;)
Actually, yes. Doing fileserving with Samba, and also using the box
interactively feels better with 2.2, and also the average TCP througput
(measured by iptraf) seems higher.
> SCSI subsystem driver Revision: 1.00
> PCI: Found IRQ 11 for device 00:0b.0
> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 000
> printing eip:
What scsi drivers do you have and which are on IRQ 11
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Has anyone benched 2.4.5pre3 vs 2.4.4 vs. ?
>
> Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up,
> but it swaps too heavily. It's a little too conservative about
> releasing cache now imho. (keeping about double what it should be
>
Hello,
I have just compiled 2.4.4-ac10 and got:
...
SCSI subsystem driver Revision: 1.00
PCI: Found IRQ 11 for device 00:0b.0
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 000
printing eip:
c01d11d0
*pde =
Oops: 0002
CPU: 0
EIP: 0010:[]
EFLAGS: 00010282
eax: df
> And a pair more:
No
> --- linux-2.4.4-ac10/include/linux/raid/md_k.h.orig Thu May 17 19:35:41
> 2001
> +++ linux-2.4.4-ac10/include/linux/raid/md_k.hThu May 17 19:36:15 2001
> @@ -38,6 +38,8 @@
> case RAID5: return 5;
> }
>
>
> gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.4-ac/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2
>-fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2
>-march=i686 -malign-functions=4 -c -o apm.o apm.c
> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> {standard input}:180: Warning: indi
"J . A . Magallon" wrote:
> --- linux-2.4.4-ac10/include/linux/raid/md_k.h.orig Thu May 17 19:35:41
> 2001
> +++ linux-2.4.4-ac10/include/linux/raid/md_k.h Thu May 17 19:36:15 2001
> @@ -38,6 +38,8 @@
> case RAID5: return 5;
&g
On 05.17 Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 05:45:38PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 2.4.4-ac10
>
> I think someone forgot this little return. It removes the
> following warning:
>
> serial.c:4208: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
>
>
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 09:40:39PM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 08:33:36PM +0200, Udo A. Steinberg wrote:
> > With 2.4.4-ac10 and binutils 2.11 I get the following warnings:
>
> It is a warning about kernel code using assembler statements
> which are not valid with som
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 05:45:38PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> 2.4.4-ac10
I think someone forgot this little return. It removes the
following warning:
serial.c:4208: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
--- linux-2.4.4-ac10/drivers/char/serial.c Thu May 17 20:41:05 2
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 08:33:36PM +0200, Udo A. Steinberg wrote:
> With 2.4.4-ac10 and binutils 2.11 I get the following warnings:
It is a warning about kernel code using assembler statements
which are not valid with some older assemblers.
> gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.4-ac/includ
Hi,
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> 2.4.4-ac10
With 2.4.4-ac10 and binutils 2.11 I get the following warnings:
gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.4-ac/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2
-fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2
-march=i686 -malign-functions=4
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Chris Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > 2.4.4-ac10
> [...]
> > - now 2.4.5pre vm seems sane dump other vmscan
> > experiments
>
> Has anyone benched 2.4.5pre3 vs 2.4.4 vs. ?
Only doing parallel kernel builds. Heavy load throughput is up,
bu
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Chris Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > 2.4.4-ac10
> [...]
> > - now 2.4.5pre vm seems sane dump other vmscan
> > experiments
>
> Has anyone benched 2.4.5pre3 vs 2.4.4 vs. ?
Marcelo saw a 30% speed increase from 2.4.4 to 2.4.5pre3
on severa
> > ftp://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/alan/2.4-ac/
> >
> Can't find it there (neither -ac9), but on the other hand it
> is on kernel.org...
Guess who forgot to fix the URL;)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTEC
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> 2.4.4-ac10
> [not merged; rage-xl code]
I'll take care of that...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations wit
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> 2.4.4-ac10
[...]
> - now 2.4.5pre vm seems sane dump other vmscan
> experiments
Has anyone benched 2.4.5pre3 vs 2.4.4 vs. ?
Cheers
Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [
Hi Alan,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
>ftp://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/alan/2.4-ac/
>
Can't find it there (neither -ac9), but on the other hand it
is on kernel.org...
Christoph
--
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.
-
To unsubscri
ftp://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/alan/2.4-ac/
Intermediate diffs are available from
http://www.bzimage.org
Ok we are back on kernel.org
2.4.4-ac10
o Move cs46xx docs into the right spot(Arjan van de Ven)
o Merge Linu
73 matches
Mail list logo
