lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Large slab cache in 2.6.1


Andrew Morton wrote:

>Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>This is the incremental min logic doing its work though. Maybe
>>that should be fixed up to be less aggressive instead of putting
>>more complexity in the scanner to work around it.
>>
>
>The scanner got simpler.
>
>
>>Anyway could you post the patch you're using to fix it?
>>
>
>Sure.
>
>
>>>Regardless of that, we do, logically, want to reclaim slab in response to
>>>highmem reclaim pressure because any highmem allocation can be satisfied by
>>>lowmem too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The logical extension of that is: "we want to reclaim *lowmem* in
>>response to highmem reclaim pressure because any ..."
>>
>
>yep.
>
>

Yeah this is good. I thought the patch you were proposing was
to shrink slab on highmem pressure.

Apply some lowmem pressure due to highmem pressure THEN shrink
slab as a result of the lowmem pressure is much better.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:3.440 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site