On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:36:53PM +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The xfs inodes are clearly pinned by the dentry cache, so the issue > > is dentries, not inodes. What's causing dentries not to be > > reclaimed? I can't see anything that cold pin them (e.g. no filp's > > that would indicate open files being responsible), so my initial > > thoughts are that memory reclaim may have changed behaviour. > > > > I guess the first thing to find out is whether memory pressure > > results in freeing the dentries. To simulate memory pressure causing > > slab cache reclaim, can you run: > > > > # echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches > > > > and see if the number of dentries and inodes drops. If the number > > goes down significantly, then we aren't leaking dentries and there's > > been a change in memoy reclaim behaviour. If it stays the same, then > > we probably are leaking dentries.... > > Hi Dave, > > Thanks for looking into this. There's no real conclusion yet: the > simulated memory pressure sent the numbers down allright, but > meanwhile it turned out that this is a different case: on this machine > the increase wasn't a constant growth, but related to the daily > updatedb job. I'll reload the original kernel on the original > machine, and collect the same info if the problem reappers.
Ok, let me know how it goes when you get a chance. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
