On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:25 PM, <<a href="mailto:nai.xia@gmail.com">nai.xia@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
hi, Nitin,</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I notice that when initializing compcache, if the compcache_size_kbytes is given<br>
a very big value, the module will be loaded abnormally </blockquote><div><br>How big is very big? Last time I checked, compcache ran OK with up to 150% ram, since this
typically requires a bit under 75% of RAM when compressed. This configuration may be useful when
booting LiveCDs with very low ram. E.g. the Ubuntu Hardy LiveCD installer
will just run with 220MB of RAM if we set compcache to 300MB. <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">-- the block device will<br>
not appear and the module will refuse to unload. (I think you can easily<br>
reproduce it youself)</blockquote><div><br>Could we simply detect or recover from the abnormal load?<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
This patch makes the user unable to use a value bigger than the system RAM,</blockquote><div><br>If we take this approach, perhaps we could make this max cap at least 200% of RAM. If we know memory is easily compressible then 200% is already sensible for some situations. Once we implement swapping out to disk sizes well in excess of 200% will be reasonably common. Would 1000% be sufficiently small to avoid this problem?<br>
</div></div><br>-- <br>John C. McCabe-Dansted<br>PhD Student<br>University of Western Australia