From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262595AbUBZBdK (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:33:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262599AbUBZBdK (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:33:10 -0500 Received: from mtaw4.prodigy.net ([64.164.98.52]:20420 "EHLO mtaw4.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262595AbUBZBdE (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:33:04 -0500 Message-ID: <403D4CBE.9080805@matchmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:32:46 -0800 From: Mike Fedyk User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040209) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Piggin 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> <403D468D.2090901@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <403D468D.2090901@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: > >>> >>>> 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. > I'll let you know. My graphs are looking better, except for one instance of Xvnc (for one user -- I'm still tracking that one down) hitting a memory grabbing loop that made me kill it. >> 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. I might as well take out the third 512MB DIMM in that machine then... Any chance you could post a VM patch roll-up against 2.6.3 for little ole me? Mike