On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:07:04PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:19:05PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:12:14AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:41:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > + count = ((sb->s_nr_dentry_unused + sb->s_nr_inodes_unused) / 100) > > > > > + * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure; > > > > > > > > Do you think truncating in the divisions is at all a problem? It > > > > probably doesn't matter much I suppose. > > > > > > Same code as currently exists. IIRC, the reasoning is that if we've > > > got less that 100 objects to reclaim, then we're unlikely to be able > > > to free up any memory from the caches, anyway. > > > > Yeah, which is why I stop short of saying you should change it in > > this patch. > > > > But I think we should ensure things can get reclaimed eventually. > > 100 objects could be 100 slabs, which could be anything from > > half a meg to half a dozen. Multiplied by each of the caches. > > Could be significant in small systems. > > True, but usually there are busy objects in the dentry and inode > slabs, so it shouldn't be a significant issue. We can probably > address such problems if they can be demonstrated to be an issue in > a separate patch set.... I didn't want to say it is a problem with your patchset, I just thought of it when reviewing. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>