Re: UPDATE: out of vmalloc space - but vmalloc parameter does not allow boot

[Roland Kuhn <rkuhn@e18.physik.tu-muenchen.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1525 bytes --]

Hi Ranko!

On Apr 4, 2005, at 4:36 PM, Ranko Zivojnovic wrote:

> (please do CC replies as I am still not on the list)
>
> As I am kind of pressured to resolve this issue, I've set up a test
> environment using VMWare in order to reproduce the problem and
> (un)fortunately the attempt was successful.
>
> I have noticed a few points that relate to the size of the physical RAM
> and the behavior vmalloc. As I am not sure if this is by design or a
> bug, so please someone enlighten me:
>
> The strange thing I have seen is that with the increase of the physical
> RAM, the VmallocTotal in the /proc/meminfo gets smaller! Is this how it
> is supposed to be?
>
Well, I'm by no means a VM expert (not even a regular kernel hacker), 
but it seems to me that the sum of LowTotal and VmallocTotal is rather 
constant for the different settings. Alas, I cannot offer an 
explanation why this should be, so hopefully a knowledgeable person 
will shed some light on this issue.

Ciao,
					Roland

--
TU Muenchen, Physik-Department E18, James-Franck-Str. 85747 Garching
Telefon 089/289-12592; Telefax 089/289-12570
--
When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty.  I think
only how to solve the problem.  But when I have finished, if the
solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.
-- R. Buckminster Fuller
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GS/CS/M/MU d-(++) s:+ a-> C+++ UL++++ P-(+) L+++ E(+) W+ !N K- w--- M+ 
!V Y+
PGP++ t+(++) 5 R+ tv-- b+ DI++ e+++>++++ h---- x+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]