Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:50:24 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cacheg |
| |
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jan Harkes wrote:
> But the VM pressure on the dcache and icache only comes into play once > the system still has a free_shortage _after_ other attempts of freeing > up memory in do_try_to_free_pages.
I don't think that it's necessary bad.
> sync_all_inodes, which is called from shrink_icache_memory is > counterproductive at this point. Writing dirty inodes to disk, > especially when there is a lot of them, requires additional page > allocations.
Agreed, but that's a) a separate story b) not the case in situation mentioned above (all inodes are busy).
> I have a patch that avoids unconditionally puts pressure on the dcache > and icache, and avoids sync_all_inodes in shrink_icache_memory. An > additional wakeup for the kupdate thread makes sure that inodes are more > frequently written when there is no more free shortage. Maybe kupdated > should be always get woken up.
Maybe, but I really doubt that constant pressure on dcache/icache is a good idea. I'd rather see what will change from fixing that bug in prune_dcache() before deciding what to do next.
> btw. Alexander, is the following a valid optimization to improve > write-coalescing when calling sync_one for several inodes? > > inode.c:sync_one > > - filemap_fdatawait(inode->i_mapping); > + if (sync) filemap_fdatawait(inode->i_mapping);
Umm... Probably.
- 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/
| |