Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:14:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:14:37 -0500 Received: from www.wen-online.de ([212.223.88.39]:46097 "EHLO wen-online.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:14:25 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:17:11 +0100 (CET) From: Mike Galbraith X-X-Sender: To: Leigh Orf cc: "M.H.VanLeeuwen" , Mark Hahn , Andrew Morton , Ken Brownfield , Subject: Re: 2.4.16 memory badness (fixed?) In-Reply-To: <200112091607.fB9G7mj01944@orp.orf.cx> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Leigh Orf wrote: > In a personal email, Mike Galbraith wrote to me: > > | On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Leigh Orf wrote: > | > | > inode_cache 439584 439586 512 62798 62798 1 > | > dentry_cache 454136 454200 128 15140 15140 1 > | > | I'd try moving shrink_[id]cache_memory to the very top of vmscan.c::shrink_caches. > | > | -Mike > > Mike, > > I tried what you suggested starting with a stock 2.4.16 kernel, and it > did fix the problem with 2.4.16 ENOMEM being returned. > > Now with that change and after updatedb runs, here's what the memory > situation looks like. Note inode_cache and dentry_cache are almost > nothing. Dunno if that's a good thing or not, but I'd definitely Almost nothing isn't particularly good after updatedb ;-) > consider this for a patch. No, but those do need faster pruning imho. The growth rate can be really really fast at times. -Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/