Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 May 2002 14:00:36 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |