Re: Memory management problems in 2.4.16

Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:57:24 -0200 (BRST)


On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Daniel Tuijnman wrote:

> > Well ... maybe *in theory* 2.4.16 should work on a machine with that
> > little RAM but I'd say in practice Linux has simply outgrown your
> > machine. Have you tried any other 2.4 kernels, say, before 2.4.10 when
> > the VM changed?

Rubbish, a VM is supposed to improve, not make it impossible to
run programs after an upgrade. Keeping Linux working on low memory
machines is definately a big issue for the VM I'm developing and
I suspect it's near the top of Andrea's list too...

> No I haven't. Was the older VM better, then? Sorry to put it so blunt,
> but if it can't swap out unneeded data, it is broken.

> 2. My first Linux experience was on a P60 with 8MB of memory, 16MB swap.
> I ran X and used TeX on my 300p. Ph.D. thesis, and that ran fine.
> So why should I need more to get less?

Absolutely agreed, the thing should just work.

If you have the time, you could try my latest -rmap patch,
available at:

http://surriel.com/patches/2.4/2.4.17-rmap-11a

I've done some testing with 'mem=9m' (using a rather fat
kernel w/ profiling) and it seems to work decently.

regards,

Rik

-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/