lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.4.16 memory badness (fixed?)
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Leigh Orf wrote:

> In a personal email, Mike Galbraith wrote to me:
>
> | On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Leigh Orf wrote:
> |
> | > inode_cache 439584 439586 512 62798 62798 1
> | > dentry_cache 454136 454200 128 15140 15140 1
> |
> | I'd try moving shrink_[id]cache_memory to the very top of vmscan.c::shrink_caches.
> |
> | -Mike
>
> Mike,
>
> I tried what you suggested starting with a stock 2.4.16 kernel, and it
> did fix the problem with 2.4.16 ENOMEM being returned.
>
> Now with that change and after updatedb runs, here's what the memory
> situation looks like. Note inode_cache and dentry_cache are almost
> nothing. Dunno if that's a good thing or not, but I'd definitely

Almost nothing isn't particularly good after updatedb ;-)

> consider this for a patch.

No, but those do need faster pruning imho. The growth rate can be
really really fast at times.

-Mike

-
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 13:14    [from the cache]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and my Meterkast|Read the blog