Re: 2.1.110 freepages.min change

Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
22 Jul 1998 21:42:21 GMT


In article <19980722222736.49195@boole.suse.de>,
Dr. Werner Fink <werner@suse.de> wrote:
>
>The change in fs/dcache.c does not look very well because
>as higher the number given to prune_dache in shrink_dcache_memory
>as more the dcache is pruned ... `0' isn't that good is it?

'0' is actually the same as "infinite", if you look at the code. So a
"prune_dcache(0)" will prune _all_ of the unused entries, while for
example a "prune_dcache(10)" will prune just 10 entries.

Essentially the new logic is that if we didn't find anything else that
can easily be free'd, we just prune the _whole_ dcache. That either
happens very seldom indeed (on my machine ;), or if it happens often it
just means that the machine is low on memory in which case it is
entirely reasonable to throw away the dcache aggressively.

Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html