From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261772AbUBWC2g (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:28:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261784AbUBWC2g (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:28:36 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-194-240-129.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.240.129]:57862 "EHLO mikef-fw.mikef-fw.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261772AbUBWC2f (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:28:35 -0500 Message-ID: <40396551.9030002@matchmail.com> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:28:33 -0800 From: Mike Fedyk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Tomlinson CC: Chris Wedgwood , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Large slab cache in 2.6.1 References: <4037FCDA.4060501@matchmail.com> <20040222031113.GB13840@dingdong.cryptoapps.com> <200402220903.08299.edt@aei.ca> In-Reply-To: <200402220903.08299.edt@aei.ca> 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 Ed Tomlinson wrote: > On February 21, 2004 10:28 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Chris Wedgwood wrote: >> >> >>>Maybe gradual page-cache pressure could shirnk the slab? >> >> >>What happened to the experiment of having slab pages on the (in)active >>lists and letting them be free'd that way? Didn't somebody already do >>that? Ed Tomlinson and Craig Kulesa? > > > You have a good memory. > > We dropped this experiment since there was a lot of latency between the time a > slab page became freeable and when it was actually freed. The current > call back scheme was designed to balance slab preasure and vmscaning. Does it really matter if there is a lot of latency? How does this affect real-world results? IOW, if it's not at the end of the LRU, then there's probably something better to free instead...