On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Leigh Orf wrote:
> In a personal email, Mike Galbraith wrote to me:
>
> | On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Leigh Orf wrote:
> |
> | > inode_cache 439584 439586 512 62798 62798 1
> | > dentry_cache 454136 454200 128 15140 15140 1
> |
> | I'd try moving shrink_[id]cache_memory to the very top of vmscan.c::shrink_caches.
> |
> | -Mike
>
> Mike,
>
> I tried what you suggested starting with a stock 2.4.16 kernel, and it
> did fix the problem with 2.4.16 ENOMEM being returned.
>
> Now with that change and after updatedb runs, here's what the memory
> situation looks like. Note inode_cache and dentry_cache are almost
> nothing. Dunno if that's a good thing or not, but I'd definitely
Almost nothing isn't particularly good after updatedb ;-)
> consider this for a patch.
No, but those do need faster pruning imho. The growth rate can be
really really fast at times.
-Mike
-
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 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:15 EST