From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261700AbUBWBG5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:06:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261703AbUBWBG5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:06:57 -0500 Received: from mail-09.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.41]:9132 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261700AbUBWBGv (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:06:51 -0500 Message-ID: <40395227.9030606@cyberone.com.au> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:06:47 +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: Andrew Morton CC: cw@f00f.org, mfedyk@matchmail.com, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Large slab cache in 2.6.1 References: <20040222033111.GA14197@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> <4038299E.9030907@cyberone.com.au> <40382BAA.1000802@cyberone.com.au> <4038307B.2090405@cyberone.com.au> <40383300.5010203@matchmail.com> <4038402A.4030708@cyberone.com.au> <40384325.1010802@matchmail.com> <403845CB.8040805@cyberone.com.au> <20040221221721.42e734d6.akpm@osdl.org> <40384D9D.6040604@cyberone.com.au> <20040222083637.GA15589@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> <20040222011350.58f756e8.akpm@osdl.org> <40394662.5060104@cyberone.com.au> <20040222162634.560c5306.akpm@osdl.org> <40394A9F.1050606@cyberone.com.au> <20040222164617.7fba4321.akpm@osdl.org> <40394F61.8060509@cyberone.com.au> <20040222170032.0219ea67.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040222170032.0219ea67.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: >Nick Piggin wrote: > >> >>>yep. >>> >>> >>> >>Yeah this is good. I thought the patch you were proposing was >>to shrink slab on highmem pressure. >> > >That as well. > > Well this is the complexity I'm talking about. Sure it is actually "simpler" code wise, but you're making it conceptually more complex. >>Apply some lowmem pressure due to highmem pressure THEN shrink >>slab as a result of the lowmem pressure is much better. >> > >Prove it to me ;) > > Your slab wasn't being shrunk because the slab pressure calculation was way off for highmem systems. My patch fixed that, so lowmem pressure should shrink slab properly. Then with your patch, highmem pressure will apply lowmem pressure. So the end result is that the slab gets appropriate pressure. Can't you just prove to me why that doesn't work? ;)