On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
> > We _have_ VM pressure there. However, such loads had never been used, so
> > there's no wonder that system gets unbalanced under them.
> >
> > I suspect that simple replacement of goto next; with continue; in the
> > fs/dcache.c::prune_dcache() may make situation seriously better.
>
> Awesome. With the obvious patch attached, some local ramfs problems
> disappeared, and my browser and e-mail program are no longer swapped out
> when doing a kernel build.
>
> Thanks :)
OK, how about wider testing? Theory: prune_dcache() goes through the
list of immediately killable dentries and tries to free given amount.
It has a "one warning" policy - it kills dentry if it sees it twice without
lookup finding that dentry in the interval. Unfortunately, as implemented
it stops when it had freed _or_ warned given amount. As the result, memory
pressure on dcache is less than expected.
Patch being:
--- fs/dcache.c Sun Apr 1 23:57:19 2001
+++ /tmp/dcache.c Thu Apr 12 03:07:39 2001
@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@
if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_REFERENCED) {
dentry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_REFERENCED;
list_add(&dentry->d_lru, &dentry_unused);
- goto next;
+ continue;
}
dentry_stat.nr_unused--;
@@ -349,7 +349,6 @@
BUG();
prune_one_dentry(dentry);
- next:
if (!--count)
break;
}
-
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/
