On 07/14/2018 02:34 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:00:32AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:35 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Could we allocate -ve entries from separate slab?
>> No, because negative dentrires don't stay negative.
>>
>> Every single positive
On 07/14/2018 02:34 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:00:32AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:35 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Could we allocate -ve entries from separate slab?
>> No, because negative dentrires don't stay negative.
>>
>> Every single positive
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:36 AM Al Viro wrote:
>
> OK, this
> /*
> * No ordinary (disk based) filesystem counts links as inodes;
> * but each new link needs a new dentry, pinning lowmem, and
> * tmpfs dentries cannot be pruned until they are unlinked.
>
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:36 AM Al Viro wrote:
>
> OK, this
> /*
> * No ordinary (disk based) filesystem counts links as inodes;
> * but each new link needs a new dentry, pinning lowmem, and
> * tmpfs dentries cannot be pruned until they are unlinked.
>
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 07:34:45PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:00:32AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:35 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >
> > > Could we allocate -ve entries from separate slab?
> >
> > No, because negative dentrires don't stay
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 07:34:45PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:00:32AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:35 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >
> > > Could we allocate -ve entries from separate slab?
> >
> > No, because negative dentrires don't stay
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:00:32AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:35 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > Could we allocate -ve entries from separate slab?
>
> No, because negative dentrires don't stay negative.
>
> Every single positive dentry starts out as a negative
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:00:32AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:35 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > Could we allocate -ve entries from separate slab?
>
> No, because negative dentrires don't stay negative.
>
> Every single positive dentry starts out as a negative
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:35 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Could we allocate -ve entries from separate slab?
No, because negative dentrires don't stay negative.
Every single positive dentry starts out as a negative dentry that is
passed in to "lookup()" to maybe be made positive.
And most of the
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:35 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Could we allocate -ve entries from separate slab?
No, because negative dentrires don't stay negative.
Every single positive dentry starts out as a negative dentry that is
passed in to "lookup()" to maybe be made positive.
And most of the
> > Yes, "should be". I could understand that the presence of huge
> > nunmbers of -ve dentries could result in undesirable reclaim of
> > pagecache, etc. Triggering oom-killings is very bad, and presumably
> > has the same cause.
> >
> > Before we go and add a large amount of code to do the
> > Yes, "should be". I could understand that the presence of huge
> > nunmbers of -ve dentries could result in undesirable reclaim of
> > pagecache, etc. Triggering oom-killings is very bad, and presumably
> > has the same cause.
> >
> > Before we go and add a large amount of code to do the
On 07/03/2018 03:11 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/03/2018 05:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long wrote:
A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
On 07/03/2018 03:11 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/03/2018 05:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long wrote:
A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
On Mon 02-07-18 16:19:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:34:40 -0700 James Bottomley
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2018-07-02 at 14:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds > > dation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52
On Mon 02-07-18 16:19:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:34:40 -0700 James Bottomley
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2018-07-02 at 14:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds > > dation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52
On 07/03/2018 07:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:34:40 -0700 James Bottomley
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2018-07-02 at 14:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds >> dation.org> wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long
On 07/03/2018 07:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:34:40 -0700 James Bottomley
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2018-07-02 at 14:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds >> dation.org> wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long
On 07/03/2018 05:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long wrote:
>>> A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
>>> dentries in the system consuming most of the memory
On 07/03/2018 05:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long wrote:
>>> A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
>>> dentries in the system consuming most of the memory
On 07/03/2018 03:34 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long wrote:
>> A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
>> dentries in the system consuming most of the memory available if it
>> is not under the direct control of a memory
On 07/03/2018 03:34 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long wrote:
>> A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
>> dentries in the system consuming most of the memory available if it
>> is not under the direct control of a memory
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 4:19 PM Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Before we go and add a large amount of code to do the shrinker's job
> for it, we should get a full understanding of what's going wrong. Is
> it because the dentry_lru had a mixture of +ve and -ve dentries?
> Should we have a separate LRU
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 4:19 PM Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Before we go and add a large amount of code to do the shrinker's job
> for it, we should get a full understanding of what's going wrong. Is
> it because the dentry_lru had a mixture of +ve and -ve dentries?
> Should we have a separate LRU
On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:34:40 -0700 James Bottomley
wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-02 at 14:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds > dation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A rogue
On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:34:40 -0700 James Bottomley
wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-02 at 14:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds > dation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A rogue
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:54 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Lookie here, for example:
>
> [torvalds@i7 linux]$ strace -e trace=%file -c git status
So in the name of honestly, that's slightly misleading.
"git" will happily thread the actual index file up-to-date testing.
And that's hidden in the
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:54 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Lookie here, for example:
>
> [torvalds@i7 linux]$ strace -e trace=%file -c git status
So in the name of honestly, that's slightly misleading.
"git" will happily thread the actual index file up-to-date testing.
And that's hidden in the
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:34 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> There are still a lot of applications that keep looking up non-existent
> files, so I think it's still beneficial to keep them. Apparently
> apache still looks for a .htaccess file in every directory it
> traverses, for instance.
.. or
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:34 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> There are still a lot of applications that keep looking up non-existent
> files, so I think it's still beneficial to keep them. Apparently
> apache still looks for a .htaccess file in every directory it
> traverses, for instance.
.. or
On Mon, 2018-07-02 at 14:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds dation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > A rogue application can potentially create a large number of
> > > negative
> > > dentries in
On Mon, 2018-07-02 at 14:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds dation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > A rogue application can potentially create a large number of
> > > negative
> > > dentries in
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:21 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:18:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Dumb question: do we know that negative dentries are actually
> > worthwhile? Has anyone checked in the past couple of decades? Perhaps
> > our lookups are so whizzy
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:21 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:18:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Dumb question: do we know that negative dentries are actually
> > worthwhile? Has anyone checked in the past couple of decades? Perhaps
> > our lookups are so whizzy
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:18:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> In the [5/6] changelog it is mentioned that a large number of -ve
> dentries can lead to oom-killings. This sounds bad - -ve dentries
> should be trivially reclaimable and we shouldn't be oom-killing in such
> a situation.
>
> Dumb
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:18:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> In the [5/6] changelog it is mentioned that a large number of -ve
> dentries can lead to oom-killings. This sounds bad - -ve dentries
> should be trivially reclaimable and we shouldn't be oom-killing in such
> a situation.
>
> Dumb
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long wrote:
> >
> > A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
> > dentries in the system consuming most of the memory available if it
> > is not under the direct control
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long wrote:
> >
> > A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
> > dentries in the system consuming most of the memory available if it
> > is not under the direct control
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long wrote:
>
> A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
> dentries in the system consuming most of the memory available if it
> is not under the direct control of a memory controller that enforce
> kernel memory limit.
I
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long wrote:
>
> A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
> dentries in the system consuming most of the memory available if it
> is not under the direct control of a memory controller that enforce
> kernel memory limit.
I
v4->v5:
- Backed to the latest 4.18 kernel and modify the code
accordingly. Patch 1 "Relocate dentry_kill() after lock_parent()"
is now no longer necessary.
- Make tracking and limiting of negative dentries an user configurable
option (CONFIG_DCACHE_TRACK_NEG_ENTRY) so that users
v4->v5:
- Backed to the latest 4.18 kernel and modify the code
accordingly. Patch 1 "Relocate dentry_kill() after lock_parent()"
is now no longer necessary.
- Make tracking and limiting of negative dentries an user configurable
option (CONFIG_DCACHE_TRACK_NEG_ENTRY) so that users
42 matches
Mail list logo
