On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:25:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Dipankar Sarma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > But: IIRC the counters were moved to the ctor/dtor for performance
> > > reasons, I'd guess mbligh ran into cache line trashing on the
> > > filp_count_lock spinlock with reaim or
Dipankar Sarma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 06:31:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> >
> > >Hugh, could you please try this with the experimental patch below ?
> > >Manfred, is it safe to decrement nr_files in file_free()
> > >instead of the des
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 06:31:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>
> >Hugh, could you please try this with the experimental patch below ?
> >Manfred, is it safe to decrement nr_files in file_free()
> >instead of the destructor ? I can't see any problem.
> >
> >
> >
> The ct
Dipankar Sarma wrote:
Hugh, could you please try this with the experimental patch below ?
Manfred, is it safe to decrement nr_files in file_free()
instead of the destructor ? I can't see any problem.
The ctor/dtor are only called when new objects are created, not on every
kmem_cache_alloc/k
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 09:56:44AM +1000, Andrew Morton forwarded from Hugh:
> >
> > Subject: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities
> >
> > One time my tmpfs-and-looped-tmpfs-kernel-builds collapsed with lots of
> > VFS: file-max limit 49778 reached
> > messages,
I am ccing this to linux-kernel for a wider audience.
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 09:56:44AM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Subject: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities
>
> Just wanted to record a couple of oddities I noticed with 2.6.13-rc3-mm3
> (maybe there before: I hardly tested -mm1 and didn't even d
6 matches
Mail list logo
