[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [BUG+FIX] 2.4 buggercache sucks
>> Summary: the code below probably isn't the desired solution.
> Very well - but where is the code to run then?

Not quite sure what you mean?

> I mean - this code solved _my_ problem. Without it the server OOMs within
> minutes of high load, as explained earlier. I'd rather like a clean fix in
> 2.4 than this, although it works.

I'm sure Andrew could explain this better than I - he wrote the
code, I just whined about the problem. Basically he frees the
buffer_head immediately after he's used it, which could at least
in theory degrade performance a little if it could have been reused.
Now, nobody's ever really benchmarked that, so a more conservative
approach is likely to be taken, unless someone can prove it doesn't
degrade performance much for people who don't need the fix. One
of the cases people were running scared of was something doing
continual overwrites of a file, I think something like:

for (i=0;i<BIGNUMBER;i++) {
lseek (0);
write 4K of data;

Or something.

Was your workload doing lots of reads, or lots of writes? Or both?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.082 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site