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 <akpm@osdl.org> wrote (on Saturday, February 21, 2004 22:15:53 -0800):

    > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
    >>
    >> What happened to the experiment of having slab pages on the (in)active
    >> lists and letting them be free'd that way? Didn't somebody already do
    >> that? Ed Tomlinson and Craig Kulesa?
    >
    > That was Ed. Because we cannot reclaim slab pages direct from the LRU it
    > turned out that putting slab pages onto the LRU was merely an extremely
    > complicated way of making the VFS cache scanning rate porportional to the
    > pagecache scanning rate. So we ended up doing just that, without putting
    > the slab pages on the LRU.

    I still don't understand the rationale behind the way we currently do it -
    perhaps I'm just being particularly dense. If we have 10,000 pages full of
    dcache, and start going through shooting entries by when they were LRU wrt
    the entries, not the dcache itself, then (assuming random access to dcache),
    we'll evenly shoot the same number of entries from each dcache page without
    actually freeing any pages at all, just trashing the cache.

    Now I'm aware access isn't really random, which probably saves our arse.
    But then some of the entries will be locked too, which only makes things
    worse (we free a bunch of entries from that page, but the page itself
    still isn't freeable). So it still seems likely to me that we'll blow
    away at least half of the dcache entries before we free any significant
    number of pages at all. That seems insane to me. Moreover, the more times
    we shrink & fill, the worse the layout will get (less grouping of "recently
    used entries" into the same page).

    Moreover, it seems rather expensive to do a write operation for each
    dentry to maintain the LRU list over entries. But maybe we don't do that
    anymore with dcache RCU - I lost track of what that does ;-( So doing it
    on the page LRU basis still makes a damned sight more sense to me. Don't
    we want semantics like "once used vs twice used" preference treatment
    for dentries, etc anyway?

    If someone has the patience to explain exactly why I'm crazy (on this topic,
    not in general) I'd appreciate it ;-)

    M.

    -
    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:0.026 / U:93.520 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site