lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.047 / U:18.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site