On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> IOW. keeping dcache/icache size low is not a good thing, unless you
> have a memory pressure that requires it. More agressive kupdate _is_
> a good thing, though - possibly kupdate sans flushing buffers, so that
> it would just keep the icache clean
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Bad idea. If you do loops over directory contents you will almost
> permanently have almost all dentries freeable. Doesn't make freeing
> them a good thing - think of the effects it would have.
>
> Simple question: how many of dentries in
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Please take a look at Ed Tomlinson's patch. It also puts pressure
> on the dcache and icache independent of VM pressure, but it does
> so based on the (lack of) pressure inside the dcache and icache
> themselves.
>
> The patch looks simple, sane and
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jan Harkes wrote:
>
> > But the VM pressure on the dcache and icache only comes into play once
> > the system still has a free_shortage _after_ other attempts of freeing
> > up memory in do_try_to_free_pages.
>
> I don't think
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jan Harkes wrote:
> But the VM pressure on the dcache and icache only comes into play once
> the system still has a free_shortage _after_ other attempts of freeing
> up memory in do_try_to_free_pages.
I don't think that it's necessary bad.
> sync_all_inodes, which is
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 01:45:08AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> > I just discovered a similar problem when testing Daniel Philip's new ext2
> > directory indexing code with bonnie++. I was running bonnie under single
> > user mode (basically
Alexander Viro wrote:
> We _have_ VM pressure there. However, such loads had never been used, so
> there's no wonder that system gets unbalanced under them.
>
> I suspect that simple replacement of goto next; with continue; in the
> fs/dcache.c::prune_dcache() may make situation seriously
Alexander Viro wrote:
We _have_ VM pressure there. However, such loads had never been used, so
there's no wonder that system gets unbalanced under them.
I suspect that simple replacement of goto next; with continue; in the
fs/dcache.c::prune_dcache() may make situation seriously better.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 01:45:08AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
I just discovered a similar problem when testing Daniel Philip's new ext2
directory indexing code with bonnie++. I was running bonnie under single
user mode (basically nothing else
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jan Harkes wrote:
But the VM pressure on the dcache and icache only comes into play once
the system still has a free_shortage _after_ other attempts of freeing
up memory in do_try_to_free_pages.
I don't think that it's necessary bad.
sync_all_inodes, which is called
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jan Harkes wrote:
But the VM pressure on the dcache and icache only comes into play once
the system still has a free_shortage _after_ other attempts of freeing
up memory in do_try_to_free_pages.
I don't think that it's
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
Please take a look at Ed Tomlinson's patch. It also puts pressure
on the dcache and icache independent of VM pressure, but it does
so based on the (lack of) pressure inside the dcache and icache
themselves.
The patch looks simple, sane and it
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
Bad idea. If you do loops over directory contents you will almost
permanently have almost all dentries freeable. Doesn't make freeing
them a good thing - think of the effects it would have.
Simple question: how many of dentries in
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
IOW. keeping dcache/icache size low is not a good thing, unless you
have a memory pressure that requires it. More agressive kupdate _is_
a good thing, though - possibly kupdate sans flushing buffers, so that
it would just keep the icache clean and
14 matches
Mail list logo
