From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261654AbUBVC6S (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:58:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261657AbUBVC6R (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:58:17 -0500 Received: from mail-01.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.33]:8382 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261654AbUBVC6N (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:58:13 -0500 Message-ID: <40381AC2.2020607@cyberone.com.au> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:58:10 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Fedyk CC: William Lee Irwin III , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Large slab cache in 2.6.1 References: <4037FCDA.4060501@matchmail.com> <4038014E.5070600@matchmail.com> <20040222012033.GC703@holomorphy.com> <40380DE2.4030702@matchmail.com> <20040222021710.GD703@holomorphy.com> <4038168C.1000404@matchmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4038168C.1000404@matchmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mike Fedyk wrote: > William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> >>>> Similar issue here; I ran out of filp's/whatever shortly after >>>> booting. >>> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 06:03:14PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: >> >>> So Nick Piggin's VM patches won't help with this? >> >> >> >> I think they're in -mm, and I'd call the vfs slab cache shrinking stuff >> a vfs issue anyway because there's no actual VM content to it, apart >> from the code in question being driven by the VM. > > > Hmm, that's news to me. Maybe that's a newer patch. I haven't been > reading the list much for the last month or so... > > Nick had a patch that was supposed to help 2.6 with low memory > situations to bring it on a par with 2.4 in that respect. ISTR > "active recycling" being mentioned about it... > Just an aside, it is hard to get 2.6 "on par" with 2.4 because 2.6 is often much fairer (although it can still be badly unfair - if we ever want to fix that we'd probably need per process mm). There are quite a lot sorts of low memory situations you can get into. My (and Nikita's) patches don't help the one you're probably in. They don't put more pressure on slab.