lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.3-mm3


Andrew Morton wrote:

>Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.3/2.6.3-mm2/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>URL is of course,
>>ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.3/2.6.3-mm3/
>>
>
>Yes, thanks.
>
>
>>This still doesn't shrink slab correctly on highmem machines
>>because you dropped my patch :(
>>
>
>First, one needs to define "correctly".
>
>Certainly, it is not "solves the alleged updatedb problem".
>
>

No, I think this is a non-problem.

>The design behind the slab shrinking is to reclaim slab in response to
>memory demand. Not in response to lowmem demand. With all the scaling,
>accounting-for-seeks-and-locality, etc.
>
>

That should come out in the wash with my patch anyway, because
it causes lowmem LRU pressure to assert a *lot* more slab pressure.
So highmem pressure should cause a similar amount of slab pressure
with either patch, it just comes about in different ways.

But allocations from lowmem will not shrink the slab nearly enough
with your patch because it shrinks by a percent of all pages.

-
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site