Re: Large slab cache in 2.6.1

[Nick Piggin]

Andrew Morton wrote:

> Nick Piggin <piggin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Can you maybe use this patch then, please?
>
> OK.
>
>
> > +static unsigned int nr_lowmem_lru_pages(void)
>
> heh, that's what I called it.
>
>
> > + * Total number of items in each slab should be used, not just freeable ones.
> > + * Unfreeable slab items should not count toward the scanning total.
>
> That's up to the individual shrinkers.  What we have for dcache and icache
> is close enough.  Most entries on inode_unused and dentry_unused should be
> reclaimable, but checking that with some instrumentation wouldn't hurt.

Yeah it is an issue with the shrinkers, but I put it here so I
only had to write it once.

All items under TODO list are pretty pedantic, but they might
have larger impacts with very small memory systems. They would
definitely improve consistency of shrink_slab's behaviour.

Granted they probably wouldn't do much in the large scheme of
things.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/