Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Dipankar Sarma
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:25:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Dipankar Sarma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > But: IIRC the counters were moved to the ctor/dtor for performance > > > reasons, I'd guess mbligh ran into cache line trashing on the > > > filp_count_lock spinlock with reaim or

Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Andrew Morton
Dipankar Sarma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 06:31:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > > > >Hugh, could you please try this with the experimental patch below ? > > >Manfred, is it safe to decrement nr_files in file_free() > > >instead of the

Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Dipankar Sarma
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 06:31:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > >Hugh, could you please try this with the experimental patch below ? > >Manfred, is it safe to decrement nr_files in file_free() > >instead of the destructor ? I can't see any problem. > > > > > > > The

Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Manfred Spraul
Dipankar Sarma wrote: Hugh, could you please try this with the experimental patch below ? Manfred, is it safe to decrement nr_files in file_free() instead of the destructor ? I can't see any problem. The ctor/dtor are only called when new objects are created, not on every

Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Hugh Dickins
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 09:56:44AM +1000, Andrew Morton forwarded from Hugh: > > > > Subject: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities > > > > One time my tmpfs-and-looped-tmpfs-kernel-builds collapsed with lots of > > VFS: file-max limit 49778 reached > >

Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Dipankar Sarma
I am ccing this to linux-kernel for a wider audience. On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 09:56:44AM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Subject: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities > > Just wanted to record a couple of oddities I noticed with 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 > (maybe there before: I hardly tested -mm1 and didn't even

Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Dipankar Sarma
I am ccing this to linux-kernel for a wider audience. On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 09:56:44AM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote: Subject: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities Just wanted to record a couple of oddities I noticed with 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 (maybe there before: I hardly tested -mm1 and didn't even

Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Hugh Dickins
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Dipankar Sarma wrote: On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 09:56:44AM +1000, Andrew Morton forwarded from Hugh: Subject: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities One time my tmpfs-and-looped-tmpfs-kernel-builds collapsed with lots of VFS: file-max limit 49778 reached messages, which I

Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Manfred Spraul
Dipankar Sarma wrote: Hugh, could you please try this with the experimental patch below ? Manfred, is it safe to decrement nr_files in file_free() instead of the destructor ? I can't see any problem. The ctor/dtor are only called when new objects are created, not on every

Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Dipankar Sarma
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 06:31:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: Dipankar Sarma wrote: Hugh, could you please try this with the experimental patch below ? Manfred, is it safe to decrement nr_files in file_free() instead of the destructor ? I can't see any problem. The ctor/dtor are

Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Andrew Morton
Dipankar Sarma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 06:31:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: Dipankar Sarma wrote: Hugh, could you please try this with the experimental patch below ? Manfred, is it safe to decrement nr_files in file_free() instead of the destructor ? I

Re: Fw: two 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 oddities

2005-08-08 Thread Dipankar Sarma
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:25:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: Dipankar Sarma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But: IIRC the counters were moved to the ctor/dtor for performance reasons, I'd guess mbligh ran into cache line trashing on the filp_count_lock spinlock with reaim or something