From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:39:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:39:32 -0400 Received: from ns.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.10]:19212 "HELO heather.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:39:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 16:39:09 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel Cc: phillips@bonn-fries.net, riel@conectiva.com.br, jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: page_launder() on 2.4.9/10 issue Message-Id: <20010906163909.186b8b46.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: <594419049.999788509@[10.132.112.53]> In-Reply-To: <20010906154212.442bdf7b.skraw@ithnet.com> <594419049.999788509@[10.132.112.53]> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.6.1 (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 Thu, 06 Sep 2001 15:01:49 +0100 Alex Bligh - linux-kernel 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