> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
> > the referenced bit on pages, so we don't recycle buffer cache
> > pages early.
> >
> > This should leave more space for the buffercache and lead to us
> > reclaiming the (now unused)
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > OK, now I know what's happening, the next question is, what should be
> > dones about it. If anything.
>
> [ discovered by alexey on #kernelnewbies ]
>
> One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
>
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Jan Harkes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
> > > > and even when it does, it does so gracefully -
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Jan Harkes wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
OK, now I know what's happening, the next question is, what should be
dones about it. If anything.
[ discovered by alexey on #kernelnewbies ]
One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
the
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
the referenced bit on pages, so we don't recycle buffer cache
pages early.
This should leave more space for the buffercache and lead to us
reclaiming the (now unused) space in the
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. We shouldn't keep inode table in
> buffer-cache at all.
Then tell me, how exactly DO you plan to do write clustering
of inodes when you want to flush them to disk ?
If you don't keep them in the buffer cache for a
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > OK, now I know what's happening, the next question is, what should be
> > dones about it. If anything.
>
> [ discovered by alexey on #kernelnewbies ]
>
> One thing we should do is make sure the
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Hmmm, considering this, it may be wise to limit the amount of
> inodes in the inode cache to, say, 10% of RAM ... because we
> can cache MORE inodes if we store them in the buffer cache
> instead!
Rik, I'd rather check the effect of prune_icache()
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Jan Harkes wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
> > > and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls off
> > > nice
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> OK, now I know what's happening, the next question is, what should be
> dones about it. If anything.
[ discovered by alexey on #kernelnewbies ]
One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
the referenced bit on pages, so we don't
Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
> > and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls off
> > nice and slowly. For example, 250 Meg of inode cache will
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
> and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls off
> nice and slowly. For example, 250 Meg of inode cache will handle 2
> million inodes
Jan Harkes wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls off
nice and slowly. For example, 250 Meg of inode cache will handle 2
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
OK, now I know what's happening, the next question is, what should be
dones about it. If anything.
[ discovered by alexey on #kernelnewbies ]
One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
the referenced bit on pages, so we don't
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Jan Harkes wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls off
nice and slowly.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
Hmmm, considering this, it may be wise to limit the amount of
inodes in the inode cache to, say, 10% of RAM ... because we
can cache MORE inodes if we store them in the buffer cache
instead!
Rik, I'd rather check the effect of prune_icache() patch
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
OK, now I know what's happening, the next question is, what should be
dones about it. If anything.
[ discovered by alexey on #kernelnewbies ]
One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. We shouldn't keep inode table in
buffer-cache at all.
Then tell me, how exactly DO you plan to do write clustering
of inodes when you want to flush them to disk ?
If you don't keep them in the buffer cache for a
19 matches
Mail list logo
