Hi Andrew. Thank you for your comment. Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:37:16 +0900 (JST) Toshiyuki Okajima <toshi.okajima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi. I found the situation where OOM-Killer happens easily.I will inform you of it. I tried to fix this problem to make OOM-Killer not happen easily as much as possible.
<SNIP>
OK.--- fs/buffer.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- fs/jbd/journal.c | 7 +++++++ fs/jbd/transaction.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/buffer_head.h | 7 +++++++ include/linux/jbd.h | 1 +5 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)The patch is fairly complex, and increasing the buffer_head size can be
Yes. Applying this fix causes the buffer_head size to increase. The increase of the buffer_head size changes into 60 bytes from 56 bytes on x86 system. As a result, the maximum number of buffer heads of one slab changes into 63 from 64. (The increase of the size is less than 2%.) Therefore I think this change influences system performance hardly. And I rather want to add a new member because I think it is useful for not only this fix but also the future.
rather costly. An alternative might be to implement a shrinker callback function for the journal_head slab cache. Did you consider this?
Yes.
But the unused-list and counters are required by managing the shrink targets
("journal head") if we implement a shrinker.
I thought that comparatively big code changes were necessary for jbd
to accomplish it.
However I will try it.
Best Regards,
Toshiyuki Okajima
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
