Re: Memory usage with qemu-kvm-0.12.1.1

[Daniel Bareiro <daniel-listas@gmx.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2648 bytes --]

Hi, Hugh.

On Thursday, 31 December 2009 17:02:49 +0000,
Hugh Dickins wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> > 
> > What tests would be recommendable to make to reproduce the problem?
> 
> Oh, I thought you were the one seeing the problem!  If you cannot
> easily reproduce it, then please don't spend too long over it.
> 
> I've never noticed it myself (perhaps because my workaday loads are
> too light, and my testing loads too heavy): I was just judging by
> the content of Rik's patch.  Rik cites AIM7 in his description,
> but perhaps someone knows an easier way to demonstrate it; though
> I was more interested in whether it also fixes the problem you saw.

Well... after of compiling three times the kernel 2.6.32.2 to test,
having the same running VMs, the swap usage reached 40% from 0%. Can it
be taken like as an evidence that the problem was reproduced?

root@ubuntu:~# free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       4060340    3927632     132708          0      83704    2265672
-/+ buffers/cache:    1578256    2482084
Swap:       497972     202944     295028

> > You say that the patch applies and builds correctly on 2.6.31.9 and
> > 2.6.32.3. I would like to test it with 2.6.32.3, but I didn't find the
> > source code of it in [1]. It would have to be in another path?
> 
> Umm, may I pretend that, as we approach the New Year, I was gazing
> into my crystal ball?  Or should I just admit to a stupid typo?
> Such a dilemma, but I'll go for honesty: 2.6.32.2, sorry about that!

I thought maybe 2.6.32.3 was some development version and that is why I
chose to ask. Although I thought that it would be a typo. Don't worry
:-)

> > Thanks for your reply and the patch.
> 
> Thanks go to Rik for the patch.  And thanks for your report and
> testing, but please don't put yourself out over it: the patch
> already looks good, and I think it should go to -stable with
> or without the commendation of whether it works for you.

Also I was doing the same amount of compilations with the 2.6.32.2 with
Rik's patch and the amount of used swap is substantially lower:

root@ubuntu:~# free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       4060340    3956872     103468          0      80912    2689772
-/+ buffers/cache:    1186188    2874152
Swap:       497972       8152     489820



From Buenos Aires I wish you a happy new year!!

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
Fingerprint: BFB3 08D6 B4D1 31B2 72B9  29CE 6696 BF1B 14E6 1D37
Powered by Debian GNU/Linux Lenny - Linux user #188.598

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]