From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262585AbUBZBG2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:06:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262587AbUBZBG1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:06:27 -0500 Received: from mail-05.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.37]:39555 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262585AbUBZBG0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:06:26 -0500 Message-ID: <403D468D.2090901@cyberone.com.au> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:06:21 +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: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.3-mm3 References: <20040222172200.1d6bdfae.akpm@osdl.org> <403BCE9E.7080607@matchmail.com> <20040224143025.36395730.akpm@osdl.org> <403D1347.8090801@matchmail.com> In-Reply-To: <403D1347.8090801@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: >> >>> What about Nick's fix up patch for the two patches above? Should I >>> include that one also? >> > > I'm running 2.6.3-mm3-486-fazok (nick's patch), and it has improved my > slab usage greatly. It was averaging 500MB-700MB slab. Now slab is > ~230MB, and page cache is ~700MB > That is a much better sounding ratio. Of course that doesn't mean much if performance is worse. Slab might be getting reclaimed a little bit too hard vs pagecache now. > See: > http://www.matchmail.com/stats/lrrd/matchmail.com/srv-lnx2600.matchmail.com-memory.html > > > Is there any way I can get the VM patches against 2.6.3? I'm not > comfortable with running -mm3 on this production server, especially > seeing the "sync hang" bug. > Well your server wasn't going too badly with 2.6.3, wasn't it? Might as well just wait for them to get into the the tree.