lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Question about memory usage in 2.4 vs 2.2
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Jan Harkes wrote:

> I've been thinking about this a bit and one possible solution would be
> to significantly lower the cost of prune_icache by removing the
> sync_all_inodes and only let it prune inodes that do not have any
> mappings associated with them. Then it might become possible to call
> it more frequently, like every time we hit do_try_free_pages.

Marcelo and me have been looking at this issue too, and have
come to almost the same conclusion as you, with one small
change.

We -need- to have a way to trigger the writeout of dirty
inodes under memory pressure. Imagine doing 'chown -R' on
a huge tree on a low-memory box; you'd end up with zillions
of dirty inodes in memory with no way to free them.

Now if prune_icache would write all the dirty inodes without
data pages to disk automatically, we'd have this issue fixed
and we'll be able to make a much more efficient prune_icache.

Anybody willing to give it a shot ?

regards,

Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/

-
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 13:22    [W:0.032 / U:4.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site