From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263136AbTJFRok (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:44:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263222AbTJFRoj (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:44:39 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([65.200.24.183]:38349 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263136AbTJFRoc (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:44:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:41:28 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Christian Borntraeger Cc: Al Viro , Patrick Mochel , LKML , Dipankar Sarma Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] Backing Store for sysfs Message-ID: <20031006174128.GA4460@kroah.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:38:06PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 02:29:15PM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote: > >> > >> 2.6.0-test6 With patches. > >> ----------------- > >> dentry_cache (active) 2520 2544 > >> inode_cache (active) 1058 1050 > >> LowFree 875032 KB 874748 KB > > > > So with these patches we actually eat up more LowFree if all sysfs > > entries are searched, and make the dentry_cache bigger? That's not good > > :( > [...] > > information for that kobject. So I don't see any savings in these > > patches, do you? > > I do. As stated earlier, with 20000 devices on a S390 guest I have around > 350MB slab memory after rebooting. > With this patch, the slab memory reduces to 60MB. That's good. But what happens after you run a find over the sysfs tree? Which is essencially what udev will be doing :) thanks, greg k-h