On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 10:36:15AM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Ok, Thank you. I've expected that this fix isn't sane,
>
> Maybe we could minimize changes for now. For example: keep these
> stale dentries in memory but silently unhash them in ->d_compare().
> Memory processure and reclai
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:48:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> > This patch detects stale dentry in proc_sys_compare and pretends that
>> > it has matching name - revalidation will kill it and lookup restarts.
>> > As a result each stale dentry
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:48:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This patch detects stale dentry in proc_sys_compare and pretends that
> > it has matching name - revalidation will kill it and lookup restarts.
> > As a result each stale dentry will be seen only once and will not
> > contaminate h
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:48:24 +0300 Konstantin Khlebnikov
wrote:
> Currently unregistering sysctl does not prune its dentries.
> Stale sysctl dentries could slowdown sysctl operations significantly.
>
> For example, command:
>
> # for i in {1..10} ; do unshare -n -- sysctl -a &> /dev/null ;
Currently unregistering sysctl does not prune its dentries.
Stale sysctl dentries could slowdown sysctl operations significantly.
For example, command:
# for i in {1..10} ; do unshare -n -- sysctl -a &> /dev/null ; done
creates a millions of stale denties around sysctls of loopback interface
5 matches
Mail list logo