[reiserfs-list] Re: [reiserfs-dev] Re: Note describing poor dcache utilization under high memory pressure
Josh MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [...] > We're not talking about actively referenced entries, we're talking about > entries on the d_lru list with zero references. Relocating those objects > should not require any more locking than currently required to remove and > re-insert the dcache entry. Right? If they are unreferenced, they can be dropped without much cost. The problem is what to do if you have 40 pages, each 1/10 filled with data in active use. -- Horst von Brand http://counter.li.org # 22616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[reiserfs-list] Re: [reiserfs-dev] Re: Note describing poor dcache utilization under high memory pressure
Oliver Xymoron wrote: > >Can we get you to agree that basically all subpage objects are immovable? > No. Certainly not in the general case, and I think Josh found ways to handle the dcache case. If we can simply free the old objects, we don't actually have to move the hot ones, as he points out. > >And as a consequence that garbage collecting at subpage levels doesn't >guarantee freeing up any pages that can then be given up to other >subsystems in response to VM pressure? The GC must think in terms of pages >to actually make progress. > >One of the design goals of slab by the way is that objects of a similar >type will end up having similar lifetimes, avoiding some of the worst >cases of sub-page allocations. > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
