ahh, good. I'll take a look. Thanks Andrew. --john On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:55:57 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm _at_ osdl.org> wrote: > John Lash <jlash _at_ speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > As it stands, it will maintain as many unused entries as there are used > > entries. > > If this low memory system las a large, stable, number of inuse dentry > > objects, the unused entries will match it thereby holding double the memory > > and possibly causing the problem you see. > > Yup. There is a fix in 2.6.1-rc1 for this. > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
References:
- inode_cache / dentry_cache not being reclaimed aggressively enoughon low-memory PCsAlex Buell
- Re: inode_cache / dentry_cache not being reclaimed aggressivelyenough on low-memory PCsJohn Lash
- Re: inode_cache / dentry_cache not being reclaimed aggressivelyenough on low-memory PCsAndrew Morton
- Prev by Date: PCMCIA lockups on HP Pavilion laptop
- Next by Date: Re: Should struct inode be made available to userspace?
- Previous by thread: Re: inode_cache / dentry_cache not being reclaimed aggressivelyenough on low-memory PCs
- Next by thread: switching to 2.6 on SATA system
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]