Re: 2.6.3-mm3

Nick Piggin
2004-02-26T01:52:57Z

Mike Fedyk wrote:

> Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> That is a much better sounding ratio. Of course that doesn't mean much
>> if performance is worse. Slab might be getting reclaimed a little bit
>> too hard vs pagecache now.
>>
>
> I'll let you know. My graphs are looking better, except for one
> instance of Xvnc (for one user -- I'm still tracking that one down)
> hitting a memory grabbing loop that made me kill it.
>

Try to get /proc/meminfo and a sysrq + T trace if something like
this happens.

>>> See:
>>> http://www.matchmail.com/stats/lrrd/matchmail.com/srv-lnx2600.matchmail.com-memory.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there any way I can get the VM patches against 2.6.3? I'm not
>>> comfortable with running -mm3 on this production server, especially
>>> seeing the "sync hang" bug.
>>>
>>
>> Well your server wasn't going too badly with 2.6.3, wasn't it? Might
>> as well just wait for them to get into the the tree.
>
>
> I might as well take out the third 512MB DIMM in that machine then...
>
> Any chance you could post a VM patch roll-up against 2.6.3 for little
> ole me?
>

It is a bit easier said than done as you might have seen :P And
I'm laz^W^W I happen to not agree with one of Andrew's patches,
so it would go against all my principles ;)

IMO, shrink_slab-for-all-zones.patch and zone-balancing-fix.patch
should be all you need although they won't shrink the slab as
much as mm3. They should be pretty easy to port by hand.