Re: [PATCH] Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cacheg

2001-04-12 Thread Rik van Riel
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > IOW. keeping dcache/icache size low is not a good thing, unless you > have a memory pressure that requires it. More agressive kupdate _is_ > a good thing, though - possibly kupdate sans flushing buffers, so that > it would just keep the icache clean an

Re: [PATCH] Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cacheg

2001-04-12 Thread Alexander Viro
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > Bad idea. If you do loops over directory contents you will almost > permanently have almost all dentries freeable. Doesn't make freeing > them a good thing - think of the effects it would have. > > Simple question: how many of dentries in /usr/src/l

Re: [PATCH] Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cacheg

2001-04-12 Thread Alexander Viro
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > Please take a look at Ed Tomlinson's patch. It also puts pressure > on the dcache and icache independent of VM pressure, but it does > so based on the (lack of) pressure inside the dcache and icache > themselves. > > The patch looks simple, sane and it

Re: [PATCH] Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cacheg

2001-04-12 Thread Rik van Riel
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jan Harkes wrote: > > > But the VM pressure on the dcache and icache only comes into play once > > the system still has a free_shortage _after_ other attempts of freeing > > up memory in do_try_to_free_pages. > > I don't think tha

Re: [PATCH] Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cacheg

2001-04-12 Thread Alexander Viro
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jan Harkes wrote: > But the VM pressure on the dcache and icache only comes into play once > the system still has a free_shortage _after_ other attempts of freeing > up memory in do_try_to_free_pages. I don't think that it's necessary bad. > sync_all_inodes, which is call

[PATCH] Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cacheg

2001-04-12 Thread Jan Harkes
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 01:45:08AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > I just discovered a similar problem when testing Daniel Philip's new ext2 > > directory indexing code with bonnie++. I was running bonnie under single > > user mode (basically nothi

Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cacheg

2001-04-11 Thread Andreas Dilger
Al writes: > 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. Yes, it a

[PATCH] Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cacheg

2001-04-11 Thread Jeff Garzik
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.

Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cacheg

2001-04-11 Thread Alexander Viro
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote: > I just discovered a similar problem when testing Daniel Philip's new ext2 > directory indexing code with bonnie++. I was running bonnie under single > user mode (basically nothing else running) to create 100k files with 1 data > block each (in a sin

Re: Fwd: Re: memory usage - dentry_cacheg

2001-04-11 Thread Andreas Dilger
Marcin Kowalski writes: > if I do a can on /proc/slabinfo I get on the machine with "MISSING" memory: > > slabinfo - version: 1.1 (SMP) > --- cut out > inode_cache 920558 930264480 116267 1162831 : 124 6 > --- cut out > dentry_cache 557245 638430128 21281 21281