From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 11:54:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 11:54:00 -0400 Received: from mail3.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.38]:49586 "EHLO mail3.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 11:54:00 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 08:53:28 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" To: William Lee Irwin III , "M. Edward Borasky" cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrea@suse.de, riel@surriel.com, torvalds@transmeta.com, akpm@zip.com.au Subject: Re: Have the 2.4 kernel memory management problems on large machines been fixed? Message-ID: <1403955762.1022057606@[10.10.2.3]> In-Reply-To: <1403412981.1022057064@[10.10.2.3]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I wouldn't bother using RedHat's kernel for this at the moment, > Andrea's tree is where the development work for this area has all > been happening recently. He's working on integrating O(1) sched > right now, which will get rid of the biggest issue I have with -aa > at the moment (the issue being that I'm too idle^H^H^H^Hbusy to > merge it ;-)). Oh, of course, I left of the bounce buffer issue, which RedHat *have* fixed in their tree, I believe. Not sure what the status of this work is for -aa at the moment. M.