From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261187AbUBVHU3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 02:20:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261189AbUBVHU3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 02:20:29 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-194-240-129.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.240.129]:64261 "EHLO mikef-fw.mikef-fw.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261187AbUBVHU0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 02:20:26 -0500 Message-ID: <40385838.3030500@matchmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:20:24 -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> <4038501F.7090405@matchmail.com> <40385306.6090301@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <40385306.6090301@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: >> 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. No problem. It is really sad when a problem could be fixed if only the origional reporter put more effort into testing the proposed fixes. Heh, so let me keep from being one of those reporters... > >> 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 ;) > Ok, I'll get started compiling tonight. Be sure to CC me if you have any updates to this patch. Mike