From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 23:25:57 -0700 From: Val Henson To: Christopher Murtagh Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Highmem on PPC? Message-ID: <20020207232557.B22964@boardwalk> References: <20020207144308.C19569@boardwalk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from christopher.murtagh@mcgill.ca on Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 01:05:23AM -0500 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 01:05:23AM -0500, Christopher Murtagh wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Val Henson wrote: > >Also, I don't think this was a particularly good test of highmem since I > >don't think many bounce buffers were used, or that the kernel had much > >reason to map/unmap many highmem pages. Unfortunately, my SCSI > >controller isn't working quite right and I can't test with a hard disk > >as a result. Any ideas for stressing the system harder? > > My Dual800 ran fine for well over a week in my office with 1GB of RAM and > with SMP. It also ran with a load average of around 10 for a couple of > hours when I tried to stress test it. It was only when it started getting > a bit of network traffic after moving it into our machine room did it > crash, and then it crashed often. (It was also compiled with GMAC and BMAC > network drivers). > > So, don't know if this info helps or not, but I'd say try giving it a > network stress test as well as a heavy CPU load. Once I turned off SMP, it > seems to be very stable (still with 1 GB of RAM). Thanks for the suggestion, but I was doing all that work on an NFS mounted root in addition to the two flood pings. :) I think the network was being stressed quite well. -VAL ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/