Marcin Kowalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Thu Apr 12, 2001 [05:30:59 PM] said:
> Hi
>
> I have applied this(Tom's) patch as well as the small change to
> dcache.c(thanx Andreas, David, Alexander and All), I ran some tests and so
> far so good, both the dcache and inode cache entries in slabinfo a
On Friday 13 April 2001 00:45, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thursday 12 April 2001 22:03, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > If you are talking about "unused" from the slab POV - _ouch_. Looks like
> > extremely bad fragmentation ;-/ It's surprising, and if that's thte case
> > I'd like to see more details.
On Thursday 12 April 2001 22:03, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:12, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > What prompted my patch was observing situations where the icache (and
> > dcache too) got so big that they were applying artifical pressu
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:12, Alexander Viro wrote:
> What prompted my patch was observing situations where the icache (and dcache
> too) got so big that they were applying artifical pressure to the page and
> buffer caches. I say artifical since
On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:12, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > > I have been playing around with patches that fix this problem. What
> > > seems to happen is that the VM code is pretty efficent at avoiding the
> >
Hi
I have applied this(Tom's) patch as well as the small change to
dcache.c(thanx Andreas, David, Alexander and All), I ran some tests and so
far so good, both the dcache and inode cache entries in slabinfo are keeping
nice and low even though I tested by creating thousands of files and then
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > I have been playing around with patches that fix this problem. What
> > seems to happen is that the VM code is pretty efficent at avoiding the
> > calls to shrink the caches. When they do get called its
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> I have been playing around with patches that fix this problem. What
> seems to happen is that the VM code is pretty efficent at avoiding the
> calls to shrink the caches. When they do get called its a case of to
> little to late. This is espically bad
Hi,
I have been playing around with patches that fix this problem. What seems to happen is
that the VM code is pretty efficent at avoiding the calls to shrink the caches. When
they
do get called its a case of to little to late. This is espically bad in lightly
loaded
systems. The followin
9 matches
Mail list logo
