On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:24:18 -0800 Phil Oester <kernel _at_ theoesters.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 04:42:43PM -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote: > > The one catch is that -j is specified without a number. > > [snip superfluous description of what 'make -j' implies] > > > number, your system is dead. A user issue because it seems the user is > > using the option without fully comprehending the consequences. > > eh? Trust me - i understand the implications of make -j. It's not an unreasonable test, especially on a machine with 1gb ram/swap. For reference, read Rik's email regarding his reverse VM patch:> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101007711817127&w=2 > > Might be enlightening I guess this testcase is somewhat driving in the direction of Martins test with some setis running, meaning it has a lot of standard processes that need files and try to work out something. Can you try Martins patch at your side, redo the -j story and give us a result? I attached it for an easy go :-) Thanks, Stephan
--- linux.virgin/mm/vmscan.c Mon Dec 31 12:46:25 2001
+++ linux/mm/vmscan.c Thu Jan 3 19:43:02 2002
@@ -394,9 +394,9 @@
if (PageDirty(page) && is_page_cache_freeable(page) && page->mapping) {
/*
* It is not critical here to write it only if
- * the page is unmapped beause any direct writer
+ * the page is unmapped because any direct writer
* like O_DIRECT would set the PG_dirty bitflag
- * on the phisical page after having successfully
+ * on the physical page after having successfully
* pinned it and after the I/O to the page is finished,
* so the direct writes to the page cannot get lost.
*/
@@ -480,11 +480,14 @@
/*
* Alert! We've found too many mapped pages on the
- * inactive list, so we start swapping out now!
+ * inactive list.
+ * Move referenced pages to the active list.
*/
- spin_unlock(&pagemap_lru_lock);
- swap_out(priority, gfp_mask, classzone);
- return nr_pages;
+ if (PageReferenced(page)) {
+ del_page_from_inactive_list(page);
+ add_page_to_active_list(page);
+ }
+ continue;
}
/*
@@ -521,6 +524,9 @@
}
spin_unlock(&pagemap_lru_lock);
+ if (max_mapped <= 0 && nr_pages > 0)
+ swap_out(priority, gfp_mask, classzone);
+
return nr_pages;
}
Follow-Ups:
- RE: 1gb RAM + 1gb SWAP + make -j bzImage = OOM"Phil Oester" <kernel _at_ theoesters.com>
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.5.2-pre performance degradation on an old 486 (it's the scheduler)
- Next by Date: Re: 1gb RAM + 1gb SWAP + make -j bzImage = OOM
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.5.2-pre performance degradation on an old 486 (it's thescheduler)
- Next by thread: RE: 1gb RAM + 1gb SWAP + make -j bzImage = OOM
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]