Re: Question about memory usage in 2.4 vs 2.2

From: Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Date: Wed Mar 21 2001 - 14:54:48 EST


On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Jan Harkes wrote:

> I've been thinking about this a bit and one possible solution would be
> to significantly lower the cost of prune_icache by removing the
> sync_all_inodes and only let it prune inodes that do not have any
> mappings associated with them. Then it might become possible to call
> it more frequently, like every time we hit do_try_free_pages.

Marcelo and me have been looking at this issue too, and have
come to almost the same conclusion as you, with one small
change.

We -need- to have a way to trigger the writeout of dirty
inodes under memory pressure. Imagine doing 'chown -R' on
a huge tree on a low-memory box; you'd end up with zillions
of dirty inodes in memory with no way to free them.

Now if prune_icache would write all the dirty inodes without
data pages to disk automatically, we'd have this issue fixed
and we'll be able to make a much more efficient prune_icache.

Anybody willing to give it a shot ?

regards,

Rik

--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 21:00:16 EST