Re: 2.5.33-mm1

[William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> It also looks like there's either a bit of internal fragmentation or a
>> missing kmem_cache_reap() somewhere:
>>   ext3_inode_cache:    20001KB    51317KB   38.97
>>       dentry_cache:     4734KB    18551KB   25.52
>>    radix_tree_node:     1811KB     1923KB   94.20
>>        buffer_head:     1132KB     1378KB   82.12

On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 06:13:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> That's really outside the control of slablru.  It's determined
> by the cache-specific LRU algorithms, and the allocation order.
> You'll need to look at the second-last and third-last columns in
> /proc/slabinfo (boy I wish that thing had a heading line, or a nice
> program to interpret it):
> ext3_inode_cache     959   2430    448  264  270    1
> That's 264 pages in use, 270 total.  If there's a persistent gap between
> these then there is a problem - could well be that slablru is not locating
> the pages which were liberated by the pruning sufficiently quickly.
> Calling kmem_cache_reap() after running the pruners will fix that up.

# grep ext3_inode_cache /proc/slabinfo 
ext3_inode_cache   18917  87012    448 7686 9668    1
...
ext3_inode_cache:     8098KB    38052KB   21.28

Looks like a persistent gap from here.


Cheers,
Bill