Re: Memory and rsync problem with vanilla 2.6.7

[Nick Piggin]

Grzegorz Kulewski wrote:
> > > Well it doesn't seem to have caused too much trouble as yet... But it
> > > is the obvious candidate if your problems continue. If you are not a
> > > bk user, the attached patch will also revert that change.
> >
> > Thanks, I will test it soon and I will report results. But I am not saying 
> > it is a bug - maybe it is simply change that can lead to problems with 
> > insane debug options but itself is good?
>
>
> Are you sure that this is good patch against vanilla 2.6.7? It gives me 
> 2 failed hunks (both normal and -R)... Should I merge it manually?

You're right here's the correct one.
 linux-2.6-npiggin/mm/vmscan.c |    7 ++-----
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff -puN mm/vmscan.c~vm-revert-fix mm/vmscan.c
--- linux-2.6/mm/vmscan.c~vm-revert-fix	2004-06-21 00:43:07.000000000 +1000
+++ linux-2.6-npiggin/mm/vmscan.c	2004-06-21 00:44:30.000000000 +1000
@@ -867,9 +867,8 @@ shrink_caches(struct zone **zones, struc
 	for (i = 0; zones[i] != NULL; i++) {
 		struct zone *zone = zones[i];
 
-		zone->temp_priority = sc->priority;
-		if (zone->prev_priority > sc->priority)
-			zone->prev_priority = sc->priority;
+		if (zone->free_pages < zone->pages_high)
+			zone->temp_priority = priority;
 
 		if (zone->all_unreclaimable && sc->priority != DEF_PRIORITY)
 			continue;	/* Let kswapd poll it */
@@ -1044,8 +1043,6 @@ scan:
 					all_zones_ok = 0;
 			}
 			zone->temp_priority = priority;
-			if (zone->prev_priority > priority)
-				zone->prev_priority = priority;
 			sc.nr_scanned = 0;
 			sc.nr_reclaimed = 0;
 			sc.priority = priority;

_