From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 07:55:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 07:55:40 -0400 Received: from ns.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.10]:46346 "HELO heather.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 07:55:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:55:08 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: Roger Larsson Cc: linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] simpler __alloc_pages{_limit} Message-Id: <20010825135508.5afe1988.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200108250055.f7P0tGh28170@mailg.telia.com> In-Reply-To: <200108242253.f7OMrbQ20401@mailf.telia.com> <200108250055.f7P0tGh28170@mailg.telia.com> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.5.3 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 02:48:28 +0200 Roger Larsson wrote: > Hi again, > > [two typos corrected from the version at linux-mm] > [...] > Doing this - the code started to collaps... > __alloc_pages_limit could suddenly handle all special cases! > (with small functional differences) > > Comments? Hi Roger, I tested your page against straight 2.4.9 (where it applied mostly, the rest I did manually) and experience the following: 1) system gets slow, even in times where plenty of free memory is available. There must be some overhead inside. 2) It does not really work around the basic problem of too many cached pages in case of heavy filesystem action, I do get the already known "kernel: __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed." by simply copying files a lot. 3) Even in high load situations the CPU load seems to get worse, I made it up to 7 with normal file copying on a SMP 1GHz 1GB RAM machine. Hm, I guess that doesn't really work as you expected. Regards, Stephan