Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:25:05 -0400 (EDT) | From | Chuck Lever <> | Subject | Re: I think I have a memory leak in 2.3.x |
| |
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Jay Thorne wrote: > I've been thinking about this more. Shrinking the inode cache, while it > would be nice for "orthogonality" is not that important. The reason why it > got out of hand on my system is that I set my inode cache far too large for > my memory size. My fault, not the code. > > I have not looked at the code, but from empirical evidence, the inode cache > can take a fair amount of memory per inode. I set my inode-max at 40690. > Over time, the cache grew to nearly 10 megs. That was annoying since I only > have 64megs. But the real answer is (Doctor Doctor, it hurts when I do > this: So, don't do that).
heh. inodes are not too large anyway; you can fit 12 of them onto a page. i don't see much advantage of actually shrinking the inode cache the same way the buffer cache is shrunk. i tried a couple of little experiments that suggested such a thing could only be bad for performance.
back to the memory leak. i think the late 2.3 kernels don't swap as aggressively as earlier kernels did, and thus a lot of useful cached state is shrink_mmap()'d away. even the 2.2 kernels don't swap as hard as they ought to, IMO.
- Chuck Lever -- corporate: <chuckl@netscape.com> personal: <chucklever@netscape.net> or <cel@monkey.org>
The Linux Scalability project: http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/linux-scalability/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |