Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:48:07 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] lockmeter results comparing 2.4.17, 2.5.3, and 2.5.5 |
| |
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Martin J. Bligh" wrote: > > > > ... > > looks a little distressing - the hold times on inode_lock by prune_icache > > look bad in terms of latency (contention is still low, but people are still > > waiting on it for a very long time). Is this a transient thing, or do people > > think this is going to be a problem? > > inode_lock hold times are a problem for other reasons.
ed mm/vmscan.c <<EOF /shrink_icache_memory/s/priority/1/ w q EOF
and repeat the tests. Unreferenced inodes == useless inodes. Aging is already taken care of in dcache and anything that had fallen through is fair game.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |