Re: page_launder() on 2.4.9/10 issue

[Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 15:01:49 +0100 Alex Bligh - linux-kernel
<linux-kernel@alex.org.uk> wrote:

> Yes, but this is because VM system's targets & pressure calcs do not
> take into account fragmentation of the underlying physical memory.
> IE, in theory you could have half your memory free, but
> not be able to allocate a single 8k block. Nothing would cause
> cache, or InactiveDirty stuff to be written.

Which is obviously not the right way to go. I guess we agree in that.

> You yourself proved this, by switching rsize,wsize to 1k and said
> it all worked fine! (unless I misread your email).

Sorry, misunderstanding: I did not touch rsize/wsize. What I do is to lower fs
action by not letting knfsd walk through the subtrees of a mounted fs. This
leads to less allocs/frees by the fs layer which tend to fail and let knfs fail
afterwards.

> [...]
> I think what you want isn't more memory, its less
> fragmented memory.

This is one important part for sure.

> Or an underlying system which can
> cope with fragmentation.

Well, I'd rather prefer the cure than the dope :-)

Regards, Stephan