From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261183AbUBVG6V (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 01:58:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261180AbUBVG6V (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 01:58:21 -0500 Received: from mail-10.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.42]:26566 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261183AbUBVG6R (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 01:58:17 -0500 Message-ID: <40385306.6090301@cyberone.com.au> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:58:14 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Fedyk 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> <4038501F.7090405@matchmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4038501F.7090405@matchmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mike Fedyk wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > >> >> 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. > That is quite alright. I didn't intend to sound pushy in that message, and I fully understand if you refuse to test patches on your production machine. > 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. > The last patch I posted would be a good one to test if you possibly can. You should hear someone shout within a few days if it does anything nasty, so the 2.6.3-mm+patch path is probably safer ;) Nick