diff for duplicates of <1530570880.3179.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 2e3e574..894b2ef 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -25,15 +25,15 @@ On Mon, 2018-07-02 at 14:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > (Please cc linux-mm@kvack.org on this work) > -> Yup. The description of the user-visible impact of current behavior +> Yup.A A The description of the user-visible impact of current behavior > is far too vague. > > In the [5/6] changelog it is mentioned that a large number of -ve -> dentries can lead to oom-killings. This sounds bad - -ve dentries +> dentries can lead to oom-killings.A A This sounds bad - -ve dentries > should be trivially reclaimable and we shouldn't be oom-killing in > such a situation. -If you're old enough, it's déjà vu; Andrea went on a negative dentry +If you're old enough, it's dA(C)jA vu; Andrea went on a negative dentry rampage about 15 years ago: https://lkml.org/lkml/2002/5/24/71 @@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ I think the summary of the thread is that it's not worth it because dentries are a clean cache, so they're immediately shrinkable. > Dumb question: do we know that negative dentries are actually -> worthwhile? Has anyone checked in the past couple of -> decades? Perhaps our lookups are so whizzy nowadays that we don't +> worthwhile?A A Has anyone checked in the past couple of +> decades?A A Perhaps our lookups are so whizzy nowadays that we don't > need them? There are still a lot of applications that keep looking up non-existent diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 3aca537..a9f3b40 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -49,15 +49,15 @@ "> \n" "> (Please cc linux-mm@kvack.org on this work)\n" "> \n" - "> Yup.\302\240\302\240The description of the user-visible impact of current behavior\n" + "> Yup.A A The description of the user-visible impact of current behavior\n" "> is far too vague.\n" "> \n" "> In the [5/6] changelog it is mentioned that a large number of -ve\n" - "> dentries can lead to oom-killings.\302\240\302\240This sounds bad - -ve dentries\n" + "> dentries can lead to oom-killings.A A This sounds bad - -ve dentries\n" "> should be trivially reclaimable and we shouldn't be oom-killing in\n" "> such a situation.\n" "\n" - "If you're old enough, it's d\303\251j\303\240 vu; Andrea went on a negative dentry\n" + "If you're old enough, it's dA(C)jA vu; Andrea went on a negative dentry\n" "rampage about 15 years ago:\n" "\n" "https://lkml.org/lkml/2002/5/24/71\n" @@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ "dentries are a clean cache, so they're immediately shrinkable.\n" "\n" "> Dumb question: do we know that negative dentries are actually\n" - "> worthwhile?\302\240\302\240Has anyone checked in the past couple of\n" - "> decades?\302\240\302\240Perhaps our lookups are so whizzy nowadays that we don't\n" + "> worthwhile?A A Has anyone checked in the past couple of\n" + "> decades?A A Perhaps our lookups are so whizzy nowadays that we don't\n" "> need them?\n" "\n" "There are still a lot of applications that keep looking up non-existent \n" @@ -81,4 +81,4 @@ "\n" James -2428d66cc894b856f3707517a2094b20be1f440aa16adb1ccd702c79ec1a26a2 +7a3a3b9ea66a7ffa638b31b4bc4bf8084f1c85a773ad1b5603193574a8dfaf06
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.