Re: Memory problem with bttv driver
Stephan von Krawczynski (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:55:15 +0100
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > Ok. So what do we do about it? I mean there are possibly some more
> > there with such a problem, or - to my prediction - there will be
more in the
> > future. I see to possibilities:
> > 1) simply increase it overall. I have not the slightest idea what
> > are. 2) make it configurable (looks like general setup to me).
> > I could provide a patch for either. Do we want that?
> I was waiting for hpa to jump on you for suggesting that! but since
> he hasn't yet done so (publicly), here's his mail when I suggested
> a month ago (as a temporary aid while tracking down a similar
> That problem was from NTFS overusing vmalloc (and I think Anton has
> now posted the fix), but NTFS wasn't in your list, and I assume you
> didn't have it in statically.
Nope, no ntfs involved here.
I read the former thread. It was in my mind when trying the increased
VMALLOC_RESERVE, and voila, it worked again. I must admit in your case
I was very much thinking that ntfs should be fixed, and I am pleased
the maintainer thought the same :-)
Unfortunately I do not have a good idea about what to do in days where
the graphics cards have more ram onboard than my last workstation had
in total. If I understood Alans' opinion, he thinks basically the
same, what the heck can you do about such monster cards? I don't know,
other than adjusting the RESERVE-area. I have not really thought about
it right now, but I suspect it would be rather impossible to make a
somehow runtime-scalable area working, which would of course be the
complete solution to the underlying problem.
So, what's left? At least configurable? Anybody with a better idea?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/