David writes:
> Alexander Viro writes:
> > 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 dent
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Marcin Kowalski wrote:
> Hi
>
> Regarding the patch
>
> I don't have experience with the linux kernel internals but could this patch
> not lead to a run-loop condition as the only thing that can break our of the
> for(;;) loop is the tmp==&dentry_unused statement.
Marcin Kowalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> Regarding the patch
>
> I don't have experience with the linux kernel internals but could this patch
> not lead to a run-loop condition as the only thing that can break our of the
> for(;;) loop is the tmp==&dentry_unused statement. So
Hi
Regarding the patch
I don't have experience with the linux kernel internals but could this patch
not lead to a run-loop condition as the only thing that can break our of the
for(;;) loop is the tmp==&dentry_unused statement. So if the required number
of dentries does not exist and thi
Alexander Viro writes:
> 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. Unf
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
