On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:01:25 -0700 Davide Italiano wrote:
> This could be probably changed -- from what | see even under high > memory pressure this wasn't a problem but all in all I agree with you > that we shouldn't loop forever but limit the number of pass on the > list to a somewhat constant number, to prevent pathological cases. I don't see any need to loop. > > I don't believe that's true. Under most circustances the existing > > scheme free more memory. The only case when yours frees more is > > when 90% of the entries are locked. > > Well, no. Here you can set the threshold to a more aggressive value so > that you reclaim more memory every time. Note that this was not > possible in the previous version, so, if you could have a situation > where all your cache entries were not touched for 15 or even 30 > seconds they would have kept around, and you can destroy up to 10% of > them everytime lowmem event is called. Outside of contrived stress tests I think it's very rare for a significant fraction of the cache to have been accessed in the last minute - particularly on large caches where this matters most. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
