From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:55:41 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 01 of 16] remove nr_scan_inactive/active Message-Id: <20070626105541.cd82c940.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <46814829.8090808@redhat.com> References: <8e38f7656968417dfee0.1181332979@v2.random> <466C36AE.3000101@redhat.com> <20070610181700.GC7443@v2.random> <46814829.8090808@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:08:57 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote: > > If all tasks spend 10 minutes in shrink_active_list before the first > > call to shrink_inactive_list that could mean you hit the race that I'm > > just trying to fix with this very patch. > > I got around to testing it now. I am using AIM7 since it is > a very anonymous memory heavy workload. > > Unfortunately your patch does not fix the problem, but behaves > as I had feared :( > > Both the normal kernel and your kernel fall over once memory > pressure gets big enough, but they explode differently and > at different points. > > I am running the test on a quad core x86-64 system with 2GB > memory. I am "zooming in" on the 4000 user range, because > that is where they start to diverge. I am running aim7 to > cross-over, which is the point at which fewer than 1 jobs/min/user > are being completed. with what command line and config scripts does one run aim7 to reproduce this? Where's the system time being spent? Thanks. -- 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