Marcin Kowalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Thu Apr 12, 2001 [05:30:59 PM] said:
> Hi
>
> I have applied this(Tom's) patch as well as the small change to
> dcache.c(thanx Andreas, David, Alexander and All), I ran some tests and so
> far so good, both the dcache and inode cache entries in slabinfo a
On Friday 13 April 2001 00:45, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thursday 12 April 2001 22:03, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > If you are talking about "unused" from the slab POV - _ouch_. Looks like
> > extremely bad fragmentation ;-/ It's surprising, and if that's thte case
> > I'd like to see more details.
On Thursday 12 April 2001 22:03, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:12, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > What prompted my patch was observing situations where the icache (and
> > dcache too) got so big that they were applying artifical pressu
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:12, Alexander Viro wrote:
> What prompted my patch was observing situations where the icache (and dcache
> too) got so big that they were applying artifical pressure to the page and
> buffer caches. I say artifical since
On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:12, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > > I have been playing around with patches that fix this problem. What
> > > seems to happen is that the VM code is pretty efficent at avoiding the
> >
Hi
I have applied this(Tom's) patch as well as the small change to
dcache.c(thanx Andreas, David, Alexander and All), I ran some tests and so
far so good, both the dcache and inode cache entries in slabinfo are keeping
nice and low even though I tested by creating thousands of files and then
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > I have been playing around with patches that fix this problem. What
> > seems to happen is that the VM code is pretty efficent at avoiding the
> > calls to shrink the caches. When they do get called its
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> I have been playing around with patches that fix this problem. What
> seems to happen is that the VM code is pretty efficent at avoiding the
> calls to shrink the caches. When they do get called its a case of to
> little to late. This is espically bad
8 matches
Mail list logo
