From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S264447AbTGKROS (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:14:18 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264486AbTGKROS
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:14:18 -0400
Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:54489 "EHLO
	perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S264447AbTGKROB (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:14:01 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:06:10 -0300 (BRT)
From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
X-X-Sender: marcelo@freak.distro.conectiva
To: Jim Gifford <maillist@jg555.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.22-pre3
In-Reply-To: <06e301c347c7$2a779590$3400a8c0@W2RZ8L4S02>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0307111405320.29894@freak.distro.conectiva>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0307052151180.21992@freak.distro.conectiva>
 <003501c34572$4113f0c0$3400a8c0@W2RZ8L4S02> <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0307081551480.21543@freak.distro.conectiva>
 <020301c3459b$942a1860$3400a8c0@W2RZ8L4S02> <1057703020.5568.10.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk>
 <024801c345a2$ceeef090$3400a8c0@W2RZ8L4S02> <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0307091428450.26373@freak.distro.conectiva>
 <064101c34644$3d917850$3400a8c0@W2RZ8L4S02> <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0307100025160.6316@freak.distro.conectiva>
 <042801c3472c$f4539f80$3400a8c0@W2RZ8L4S02> <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0307110953370.28177@freak.distro.conectiva>
 <06e301c347c7$2a779590$3400a8c0@W2RZ8L4S02>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


Right. Waiting for more results.

Please always forawrd lkml okay?

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Jim Gifford wrote:

> It locked up last night, but no error information. But I did notice a
> massive memory leak. I will follow up on that today, (756MB).
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marcelo Tosatti" <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
> To: "Jim Gifford" <maillist@jg555.com>
> Cc: <riel@redhat.com>; "Andrea Arcangeli" <andrea@suse.de>
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.22-pre3
>
>
> > y
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Jim Gifford wrote:
> >
> > > I have a question, look at the buffers. Should the buffers be increasing
> in
> > > this manner??
> >
> > I think its correct - its just caching more data after time passes.
> >
> > RIel, Andrea?
> >
> > >
> > > When I started the system this was my reading
> > >
> > > top - 01:39:10 up 5 min, 1 user, load average: 3.70, 1.78, 0.72
> > > Tasks: 106 total, 3 running, 103 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> > > Cpu0 : 30.8% user, 13.5% system, 55.8% nice, 0.0% idle
> > > Cpu1 : 39.7% user, 18.6% system, 41.7% nice, 0.0% idle
> > > Mem: 1033896k total, 195548k used, 838348k free, 7188k buffers
> > > Swap: 265060k total, 0k used, 265060k free, 45132k cached
> > >
> > > Here is my current reading after being up 13 hours.
> > >
> > > top - 14:41:57 up 13:06,  2 users,  load average: 2.92, 3.26, 3.11
> > > Tasks: 118 total,   5 running, 113 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
> > >  Cpu0 :  32.5% user,  10.8% system,  56.7% nice,   0.0% idle
> > >  Cpu1 :  27.4% user,  12.1% system,  60.5% nice,   0.0% idle
> > > Mem:   1033672k total,   577568k used,   456104k free,   137452k buffers
> > > Swap:   265060k total,        0k used,   265060k free,   167232k cached
> >
> >
>