From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262363AbUBZBw5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:52:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262322AbUBZBw5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:52:57 -0500 Received: from mail-01.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.33]:45484 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262363AbUBZBwz (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:52:55 -0500 Message-ID: <403D5174.6050302@cyberone.com.au> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:52:52 +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> <403D468D.2090901@cyberone.com.au> <403D4CBE.9080805@matchmail.com> In-Reply-To: <403D4CBE.9080805@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: > >> >> >> 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. > Try to get /proc/meminfo and a sysrq + T trace if something like this happens. >>> 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? > It is a bit easier said than done as you might have seen :P And I'm laz^W^W I happen to not agree with one of Andrew's patches, so it would go against all my principles ;) IMO, shrink_slab-for-all-zones.patch and zone-balancing-fix.patch should be all you need although they won't shrink the slab as much as mm3. They should be pretty easy to port by hand.