From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [-mm][PATCH 0/10] memory related bugfix set for 2.6.26-rc5-mm3 v2 From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: <20080625185717.D84C.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20080625185717.D84C.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:09:31 -0400 Message-Id: <1214406571.7010.21.camel@lts-notebook> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel List-ID: On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 18:59 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi, Andrew and mm guys! > > this is mm related fixes patchset for 2.6.26-rc5-mm3 v2. > > Unfortunately, this version has several bugs and > some bugs depend on each other. > So, I collect, sort, and fold these patchs. > > > btw: I wrote "this patch still crashed" last midnight. > but it works well today. > umm.. I was dreaming? Yes. I ran my stress load with Nishimura-san's cpuset migration test on x86_64 and ia64 platforms overnight. I didn't have all of the memcgroup patches applied--just the unevictable lru related patches. Tests ran for ~19 hours--including 70k-80k passes through the cpuset migration test--until I shut them down w/o error. OK, I did see two oom kills on the ia64. My stress load was already pretty close to edge, but they look suspect because I still had a couple of MB free on each node according to the console logs. The system did seem to choose a reasonable task to kill, tho'--a memtoy test that locks down 10s of GB of memory. > > Anyway, I believe this patchset improve robustness and > provide better testing baseline. > > enjoy! I'll restart the tests with this series. > > > Andrew, this patchset is my silver-spoon. > if you like it, I'm glad too. > > > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org