From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261182AbUBVGp5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 01:45:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261184AbUBVGp5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 01:45:57 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-194-240-129.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.240.129]:61189 "EHLO mikef-fw.mikef-fw.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261182AbUBVGpy (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 01:45:54 -0500 Message-ID: <4038501F.7090405@matchmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:45:51 -0800 From: Mike Fedyk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Piggin CC: Chris Wedgwood , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Large slab cache in 2.6.1 References: <4037FCDA.4060501@matchmail.com> <20040222023638.GA13840@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> <20040222031113.GB13840@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> <20040222033111.GA14197@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> <4038299E.9030907@cyberone.com.au> <40382BAA.1000802@cyberone.com.au> <4038307B.2090405@cyberone.com.au> <40383300.5010203@matchmail.com> <4038402A.4030708@cyberone.com.au> <40384325.1010802@matchmail.com> <403845CB.8040805@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <403845CB.8040805@cyberone.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Mike Fedyk wrote: > >> Nick Piggin wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Mike Fedyk wrote: >>> >>>> What is the kernel parameter to disable highmem? I saw nohighio, >>>> but that's not it... >>>> >>> >>> Not sure. That defeats the purpose of trying to get your setup >>> working nicely though ;) >>> >>> Can you upgrade to 2.6.3-mm2? It would be ideal if you could >>> test this patch against that kernel due to the other VM changes. >> >> >> >> I can test on another machine, but it doesn't have as much memory, and >> I'd have to use highmem emulation. >> > > Probably not worth the bother. It is easy enough for anyone to > test random things, but the reason your feedback is so important > is because you are actually *using* the system. I completely understand what you're saying. I have seen enough threads where someone refused to test patches. So let me be more specific. I'll have to test the kernel on two other machines for a few days before I put it on this particular machine. Unfortunately, both of them have < 1.5GB ram. So let me know which patches are most likely to fix this problem. PS, if I can apply them to my 2.6.1 kernel, then I wouldn't have to run the base kernel to compare changes of 2.6.1 -> 2.6.3 -> 2.6.3-mm -> your patch. Each step would require a week-day to get a fair compairison. Mike