Re: 2.6.20-rc6 ramdisk problem

2007-01-31 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:14 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote: > > So either #1 or #2 should have failed in the first place. Failing in #3 > > is definitely a BUG in #1 or #2. > > > > How does your advise help to fix that BUG ? Ignoring it by using > > something else ? > > Yes, there is likely a bug he

Re: 2.6.20-rc6 ramdisk problem

2007-01-31 Thread Robert Hancock
Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 17:54 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote: I'm not sure if there's an inherent max ramdisk size limit, however I should point out that in most cases, using a tmpfs or ramfs file system is better than old-style ramdisks. Those filesystems return unused memor

Re: 2.6.20-rc6 ramdisk problem

2007-01-31 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 17:54 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote: > I'm not sure if there's an inherent max ramdisk size limit, however I > should point out that in most cases, using a tmpfs or ramfs file system > is better than old-style ramdisks. Those filesystems return unused > memory to the kernel (

Re: 2.6.20-rc6 ramdisk problem

2007-01-31 Thread Robert Hancock
Michal Piotrowski wrote: Hi, I want to create a large ramdisk - 1GB CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_COUNT=1 CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_SIZE=4096 CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_BLOCKSIZE=1024 kernel comman line: ramdisk_size=100 .. With ramdisk_size=50 everything is ok. machine CPU P4 (ia32)