Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:32:23 -0800 | From | Hanna Linder <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] lockmeter results comparing 2.4.17, 2.5.3, and 2.5.5 |
| |
--On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 16:48:07 -0500 Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> wrote:
> > ed mm/vmscan.c <<EOF > /shrink_icache_memory/s/priority/1/ > w > q > EOF > > and repeat the tests. Unreferenced inodes == useless inodes. Aging is > already taken care of in dcache and anything that had fallen through > is fair game. >
FYI:
The patch does this:
*** vmscan.c.orig Wed Feb 27 14:09:49 2002 --- vmscan.c Wed Feb 27 14:10:16 2002 *************** *** 578,584 **** return 0; shrink_dcache_memory(priority, gfp_mask); ! shrink_icache_memory(priority, gfp_mask); #ifdef CONFIG_QUOTA shrink_dqcache_memory(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask); #endif --- 578,584 ---- return 0; shrink_dcache_memory(priority, gfp_mask); ! shrink_icache_memory(1, gfp_mask); #ifdef CONFIG_QUOTA shrink_dqcache_memory(DEF_PRIORITY, gfp_mask); #endif
- 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/
| |