Re: "Cached" grows and grows and grows...

[Alan Cox]

> //      printk(KERN_ERR "__alloc_pages: %lu-order allocation failed.\n", order)
>         return NULL;
> 
> If there is no printk, you will obviously not notice the problem. You can bet
> your car on not "seeing the problem".

That printk is commented out because its pointless and bogus noise. It just
causes confused bug reporting. The stuff that matters is cache sizes
shrinking back when we need memory not slowly eating the computer alive.

> Nevertheless there _is_ a problem, because nfs still fails on low mem situation
> when option "no_subtree_check" is _off_/not used.

In certain cases NFS will struggle. It isnt as bad in -ac as we use
GFP_KERNEL for nfs level reassembly. It happens in 2.2 as well tho.

Alan