| To: | Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Dealing with buggy hardware (was: b44 and 4g4g) |
| From: | Pekka Pietikainen <pp@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:34:42 +0300 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040610200504.GG4507@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20040531202104.GA8301@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040605200643.GA2210@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040605131923.232f8950.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040609122905.GA12715@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040610200504.GG4507@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2i |
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:05:04PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > This should hit machines with 2GB ram too, right? > Is it possible to find if it hits me? I get hard lockups on > 2GB machine with b44, but they take ~5min.. few hours to > reproduce... > > It seems to me like this should hit very quickly. > -- > 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms > Yikes! With the 4:4 VM split it definately is instantaneous with > 1GB of memory, I triggered it with 1.25G myself and never noticed anything wrong with just 1GB (allocation starts from the top it seems). With the standard 1:3 split I don't think anything > 1GB ever gets used for skbuffs, but maybe there are circumstances where this can happen? (Or the issue isn't fully understood yet, figuring out what breaks and what doesn't was basically just trial and error :-/ ) |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.7-rc3: waiting for eth0 to become free, Felipe Alfaro Solana |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Dealing with buggy hardware (was: b44 and 4g4g), Pavel Machek |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Dealing with buggy hardware (was: b44 and 4g4g), Pavel Machek |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Dealing with buggy hardware (was: b44 and 4g4g), Pavel Machek |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |