On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:00:47 -0600 (CST) > Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > Thanks Stuart. Rik, Andrew, should the following be improved in some > > > way? I did not come to any decent conclusion on what to do with pages in > > > the inactive list with buffer_head as we are already stripping them when > > > the pages reach the end of the LRU. > > > > We have made the statement in the past that configurations > 8GB on 32 > > bit should not be considered stable or supported? The fact is the more > > memory you add on 32 bit the less low mem memory is available and the more > > likely that an OOM will occur for any number of reasons. > > I have memories of 16G being usable in earlier kernels. 16G regularly fell over in our environment so we now have an 8G max restriction for those still using 32 bit. > Also, if an 8G machine works OK at present, it's only by luck. > sizeof(buffer_head) is around 100, so it takes 1.6GB of buffer_heads to > support 8G of 512-byte blocksize pagecache. Well the slow kernel degradation in operation again. We also require those 32 bit guys with the 8G limit to run older kernel versions... -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>