lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: negative dentries wasting ram


On Fri, 24 May 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> so why don't you also left a negative directory floating around, so you
> know if you creat a file with such name you don't need to ->loopup the
> lowlevel fs but you only need to destroy the negative directory and all
> its leafs in-core-dcache? If you did the negative effect would become
> more obvious, the d_unhash hides it except for the spooling workloads.

-ENOPARSE

> of kmem_cache_reap, so we are as efficient as possible, but we don't
> risk throwing away very useful cache, for more dubious caching effects
> after an unlink/create-failure that currently have the side effect of
> throwing away tons of worthwhile positive pagecache (and even triggering
> swap false positives) in some workloads.

I might buy that argument if we didn't also leave around _unreferenced_
inodes for minutes in the icache. And _that_ is much stronger source of
memory pressure, so if you want to balance the thing you need to start
there.

-
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 13:26    [W:0.097 / U:2.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site