> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
> > the referenced bit on pages, so we don't recycle buffer cache
> > pages early.
> >
> > This should leave more space for the buffercache and lead to us
> > reclaiming the (now unused) s
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > OK, now I know what's happening, the next question is, what should be
> > dones about it. If anything.
>
> [ discovered by alexey on #kernelnewbies ]
>
> One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
> th
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Jan Harkes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
> > > > and even when it does, it does so gracefully - perfo
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. We shouldn't keep inode table in
> buffer-cache at all.
Then tell me, how exactly DO you plan to do write clustering
of inodes when you want to flush them to disk ?
If you don't keep them in the buffer cache for a
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > OK, now I know what's happening, the next question is, what should be
> > dones about it. If anything.
>
> [ discovered by alexey on #kernelnewbies ]
>
> One thing we should do is make sure the buff
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Hmmm, considering this, it may be wise to limit the amount of
> inodes in the inode cache to, say, 10% of RAM ... because we
> can cache MORE inodes if we store them in the buffer cache
> instead!
Rik, I'd rather check the effect of prune_icache() pat
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Jan Harkes wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
> > > and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls off
> > > nice an
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> OK, now I know what's happening, the next question is, what should be
> dones about it. If anything.
[ discovered by alexey on #kernelnewbies ]
One thing we should do is make sure the buffer cache code sets
the referenced bit on pages, so we don't
Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
> > and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls off
> > nice and slowly. For example, 250 Meg of inode cache will ha
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:27:48AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> more memory. If you have enough memory, the inode cache won't thrash,
> and even when it does, it does so gracefully - performance falls off
> nice and slowly. For example, 250 Meg of inode cache will handle 2
> million inodes wi
10 matches
Mail list logo
