From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]) by ewsd; Thu May  7 16:06:59 EDT 2020
Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
	by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63E2D98E4;
	Thu,  7 May 2020 16:06:57 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from unobe@cpan.org)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=date
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from:message-id; s=sasl;
	 bh=F+ohJILHE3YY5uHzhcPek7Cx59Q=; b=cGJAb1dJJekEmkSHeCUX5FDP8ZaZ
	fISSzl29AEio9I2mbrjo+bGLDxjzA7vQIxQqI30mpgpbtQxOLps0ZXhlitrq8wK6
	JUvvcN/sjqWsbgddUZY+LOoelsjA1U+bERsPHNJKqXUyJtiYFTCcRo1M9FONZdTf
	VHsxtgKdVNOJQig=
Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
	by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE760D98E3;
	Thu,  7 May 2020 16:06:57 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from unobe@cpan.org)
Received: from [10.0.1.31] (unknown [137.25.138.56])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A573D98E0;
	Thu,  7 May 2020 16:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from unobe@cpan.org)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 20:06:51 +0000
In-Reply-To: <0AFE259496A22AD0E3BB2E4335207164@felloff.net>
References: <0AFE259496A22AD0E3BB2E4335207164@felloff.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9front] rpi4 shoots to 100% load and is unresponsive
To: 9front@9front.org,cinap_lenrek@felloff.net
From: Romano <unobe@cpan.org>
Message-ID: <CF08CCF3-3EBD-402E-95B5-599A83FB788C@cpan.org>
X-Pobox-Relay-ID:
 4C324120-909E-11EA-A805-8D86F504CC47-09620299!pb-smtp21.pobox.com
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: software markup descriptor 

Thanks , cinap=2E

I noticed that too, but I think my inexperience with hg screwed me, or may=
be just too late when I was messing with it=2E I thought of trying to roll =
back to an earlier commit to see how things built, and I think I did 'hg up=
date 7726', rather than the changset prior=2E

If I do 'hg update 7709', then 'mk' in /sys/src/9/bcm64, then copy the ker=
nel over to /n/pidos, would that be heading in the right direction? Or shou=
ld I revert the problematic commit in my working area, and see how that goe=
s?


On May 7, 2020 7:54:52 PM UTC, cinap_lenrek@felloff=2Enet wrote:
>i could imagine that the following change might have an inmpact?
>
>changeset:   7726:e2d79247a51c
>user:        cinap_lenrek@felloff=2Enet
>date:        Sun Apr 26 19:54:46 2020 +0200
>summary:     kernel: improve page reclaimation strategy and locking
>
>i have not tested this change on raspi, but ran some stress tests
>on a thinkpad, filling all memory and memory reclaimation worked
>fine there=2E
>
>in any case, you can try reverting this change and see if it has
>any impact?
>
>i do not have time now=2E=2E=2E maybe this weekend i can look into it
>and try on raspberry pi=2E
>
>--
>cinap